Joshua Tree National Park Transit Feasibility Study

| P a g e

Joshua Tree National Park Transit Feasibility Study

Institute of Transportation Engineers Student Chapter

University of California, Irvine June 30, 2014

i | P a g e

Report Complied By

Sarah Hernandez

PhD Candidate

and

Alma Carrillo and Allison Rodriguez

Undergraduate Students

On Behalf of the

Institute of Transportation Engineers Student Chapter

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, CA

Supervised By

Stephen Ritchie

Professor

Prepared for the

National Park Service

Joshua Tree National Park

Joshua Tree, CA

and

National Parks Conservation Association

California Desert Field Office

Joshua Tree, CA

June 30th, 2014

ii | P a g e

Executive Summary

In recent years, Joshua Tree National Park has been experiencing an increase in visitation

at a level that has begun to exceed the park’s infrastructure capacity. To address this issue, the

National Parks Conservation Association and Joshua Tree National Park asked the University of

California, Irvine Institute of Transportation Engineers Student Chapter to conduct a transit

feasibility study, including the design of three shuttle system route alternatives within park

grounds. The scope of this study includes a visitor survey, a parking analysis, the design of three

transit routing and infrastructure alternatives, comparison between different transit technologies,

and funding and finance options.

This report summarizes the park’s current conditions and the results of a park visitor

survey that outlines the views of park guests concerning the incorporation of a transit system.

Approximately 57% of survey respondents expressed interest in a transit system and were

willing to pay around $5 for the service. In addition to the survey, a parking analysis was

conducted to obtain parking lot congestion level estimates and travel patterns within the park.

Based on these observed patterns and survey results, three routing and infrastructure

alternatives were developed. Alternative 1 has three different lines: one connecting Joshua Tree

Visitor Center (JTVS) to Barker Dam, one connecting Hidden Valley to Keys View, and one

connecting Hidden Valley to Cholla Cactus Garden with a transfer stop at Hidden Valley. The

visited sites in this alternative include: JTVS, Hidden Valley, Barker Dam, Keys View, Ryan

Mountain, Jumbo Rocks, Arch Rock, and Cholla Cactus Garden. Alternative 2 builds upon

Alternative 1 with a third route operating between the Oasis Visitor Center and Hidden Valley.

Alternative 3 also builds upon Alternative 1 with the addition of a seasonal route which connects

Cholla Cactus to Cottonwood Visitor Center.

Based on the findings of the parking study and visitor usage data from a 2010 visitor

survey, an origin-destination (OD) matrix capturing the number of visitors traveling between

sites was used to establish the characteristics of each route alternative. Total ridership, i.e. the

expected number of riders per hour, was derived through comparison to other National Park

transit programs. The predicted ridership of 368 riders per hour combined with the OD data was

then used to find bus headways, required seating, and number of buses for each alternative.

iii | P a g e

Beyond alleviating parking and entrance station congestion, another goal of the transit

system is to reduce environmental impacts resulting from vehicle emissions. Therefore six

alternative transit technologies were compared. These included: diesel, bio-diesel, hybrid diesel-

electric, electric, propane, and hydrogen. All six technologies operate uniquely, require

specialized infrastructure for fueling and maintenance, and have various impacts on the air

quality. Taking cost effectiveness and environmental impact into consideration, the propane

shuttle technology was determined to best serve Joshua Tree National Park. Several other

National Parks, including Yosemite and Zion, also currently operate propane buses.

The overall costs of the three routing alternatives and different transit technologies were

calculated and financial options were researched to determine the most affordable options for the

Park. Two options were considered for bus acquisition—a purchasing option and a leasing

option. With the purchasing option, Joshua Tree National Park can purchase the buses at the

beginning of the program and pay annual costs to operate and maintain the buses. The leasing

option will provide the opportunity to invest a down payment the first year and have monthly

payments for 72 months, as well as a buyout payment at the end of the lease. In the end, it was

determined that the most effective option for the transit system is to lease propane buses. This is

mostly due to the initial year costs. Although the annual costs to lease the buses are higher than

the purchasing option by about $70,000 a year, the initial payment to lease a bus is only about

10% of the cost to purchase a bus. This will help Joshua Tree Park with the initial funds

necessary to implement a transit system.

Funding options for the transit system are summarized in this report. Applicable funds

include donation funds, Federal Lands Access Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program,

entrance fee increase, and sponsorships like the National Park Foundation.

Synthesizing the findings of each aspect of the report, it was determined that route

Alternative 2 operating with propane buses acquired through a leasing option is the ideal

alternative. Route Alternative 2 serves visitors at two different entrance locations while

maintaining access to the most popular sites in the park. Dividing traffic between entrance

locations can help alleviate traffic at the Joshua Tree Visitor Center (JTVC) and its surrounding

intersections and reduce the need to expand parking lot capacity at the JTVC location. Propane

buses possess the best tradeoff between reduced emissions and costs. The present value cost for

iv | P a g e

Alternative 2 is approximately $28 million which includes leasing propane buses over a six year

period with a buyout after the lease, operations costs such as wages and fuel over a twelve year

period, and infrastructure costs for transit stop amenities such as benches and signage.

v | P a g e

Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2: Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Locations within the Park .................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Locations Outside the Park ................................................................................................. 13

2.3 Road Networks .................................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Parking ................................................................................................................................ 16

Chapter 3: Visitor Survey ............................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Questionnaire Development ................................................................................................ 19

3.2 Survey Procedure ................................................................................................................ 20

3.3 Survey Distribution ............................................................................................................. 21

3.4 Analysis of Survey Responses ............................................................................................ 21

3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 4: Parking Study .............................................................................................................. 26

4.1 Occupancy Rate Pattern ...................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Average Stay Pattern ........................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Origin Destination Data ...................................................................................................... 32

Chapter 5: Transit Routing & Infrastructure ................................................................................. 34

5.1 Transit Ridership Estimation ............................................................................................... 34

5.2 Daily Travel Demand Prediction......................................................................................... 39

5.3 Route Alternatives & Infrastructure Needs ......................................................................... 43

5.2.1 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................. 44

5.2.2 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................. 46

5.2.3 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................. 47

5.3 Shuttle Operation................................................................................................................. 48

5.4 Transit System Characteristics ............................................................................................ 49

5.5 Parking Lots ........................................................................................................................ 54

Chapter 6: Traffic Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 57

6.1 Analysis of Existing Intersections ....................................................................................... 57

vi | P a g e

6.2 Projected Traffic .................................................................................................................. 57

6.2.2. Results ............................................................................................................................. 61

Chapter 7: Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 62

7.1 Existing Transit Services ..................................................................................................... 62

7.2 Transit Technologies ........................................................................................................... 62

7.3 Air Pollutants....................................................................................................................... 71

7.4 Comparison of Transit Technology Emission Rates ........................................................... 74

7.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 75

Chapter 8: Funding & Finance ...................................................................................................... 78

8.1 Cost Analysis....................................................................................................................... 78

8.2 Funding Analysis................................................................................................................. 83

Chapter 9: Recommendation and Conclusion............................................................................... 90

References ..................................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 99

Section A.1: Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 99

Section A.2: Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 115

Section A.3: Survey Information Card .................................................................................... 120

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 121

Section B.1: Park Visitor Comparison .................................................................................... 121

Section B.2 : National Parks Visitation by Age Group (%) .................................................... 124

Section B.3: National Parks Visitation by In State and Out of State Visitors (%).................. 125

Section B.4: Number of Campsites in National Parks ............................................................ 125

Section B.5: Size of Land Mass of National Parks ................................................................. 126

Section B.6: Intra-park Travel Demands................................................................................. 127

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 129

Section C.1: Infrastructure Tables ........................................................................................... 129

Section C.2: Infrastructure Images .......................................................................................... 131

Section C.3: Cost Estimates .................................................................................................... 132

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 135

Section D.1: Purchasing Option .............................................................................................. 135

Section D.2: Leasing Option ................................................................................................... 138

vii | P a g e

List of Tables Table 1: Concerns about transit .................................................................................................... 24

Table 2: Current Parking Lot Capacities for Joshua Tree National Park ..................................... 27

Table 3: Origin Destination Summary .......................................................................................... 32

Table 4: Park Comparison ............................................................................................................ 37

Table 5: Weights used for Weight Analysis ................................................................................. 38

Table 6: Alternative 1 Route Distances and Travel Times ........................................................... 45



Table 9: OD Trip Tables ............................................................................................................... 50

Table 10: OD Trip Proportions ..................................................................................................... 50

Table 11: Transit Riders in the Peak Hour.................................................................................... 51

Table 12: Visitation by Entrance Station ...................................................................................... 51

Table 13: Sites visited from Visitor Centers ................................................................................. 52

Table 14: Transit OD Matrix ........................................................................................................ 52

Table 15: Traffic Counts at West Entrance (Joshua Tree) ............................................................ 59

Table 16: Traffic Counts at North Entrance (Twentynine Palms Oasis) ...................................... 60

List of Figures Figure 1: Joshua Tree Location in Southern California (from NPS.gov) ....................................... 9

Figure 2: Annual Visitation (Source: irma.nps.gov) ..................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Issues Affecting Joshua Tree National Park and Potential Solutions ........................... 11

Figure 4: Northeast Park Map (Source: www.nps.gov/jotr) ......................................................... 15

Figure 5: South entrance park map (Source: www.nps.gov/jotr) ................................................. 16

Figure 6: Location of Existing Parking Areas in Joshua Tree ...................................................... 17

Figure 7: Average time to find parking......................................................................................... 22

Figure 8: Stated willingness to use and pay for transit ................................................................. 23

Figure 9: Parking Lot Occupancy Rates ....................................................................................... 28

Figure 10: Graph of minimum, average, and maximum length of stay for each lot ..................... 30

Figure 11: Distribution of number of vehicles parked for a number of hours .............................. 31

Figure 12: Visitation by Group Type ............................................................................................ 35

Figure 13: Visitation by Group Size ............................................................................................. 36

Figure 14: Visitation by Activity Type ......................................................................................... 36

Figure 15: Transit Ridership Data from Rocky Mountain and Acadia NP ................................... 39

Figure 16: Monthly visitation for 2013 ......................................................................................... 40

Figure 17: 90th

Percentile Monthly Visitation .............................................................................. 41

Figure 18: Hourly visitation distribution from the UCI Parking Study ........................................ 42

Figure 19: Route Alternative 1 Map ............................................................................................. 45



viii | P a g e

Figure 22: Route Alternative 1 Travel Patterns based on the OD Travel Matrix ......................... 53

Figure 23: Existing Joshua Tree Visitor Center Parking Lot ........................................................ 56

Figure 24 : ADTs data collected locations near Joshua Tree Visitor Center ................................ 58

Figure 25: ADTs data collected near Oasis Visitor Center........................................................... 59

Figure 26: Monthly vehicle counts ............................................................................................... 60

Figure 27: Emissions Rates by transit technology and pollutant .................................................. 76

Figure 28: Per person emissions by transit technology and pollutant .......................................... 77

Figure 29: Initial Bus Costs for Purchase Option ......................................................................... 80

Figure 30: Present Value Costs of the Purchasing Option (in million dollars) ............................ 80

Figure 31: Present Value Costs of the Leasing Option (in million dollars).................................. 82

Figure 32: Restrooms at Joshua Tree National Park ................................................................... 131

Figure 33: Shuttle stop from Zion National Park........................................................................ 131

9 | P a g e

Chapter 1: Introduction

Joshua Tree National Park is one of three Southern California desert parks as shown in

Figure 1. The Park is centrally located about 140 miles east from Los Angeles, 175 miles

northeast of San Diego, and 215 miles southwest of Las Vegas. The Park has three entrances in

the towns of Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms, and Cottonwood Spring/Indio. The 800,000 acre

park encompasses two distinct desert ecosystems and is home to 813 desert plant species like the

iconic Joshua Tree. Desert animal species such as the threatened desert tortoise also call this

Park home. The land that now makes up the National Park has a storied past that can be traced

back over 5,000 years to its first human inhabitants. Beginning in the 1800’s the Park was

grounds for cattle farming and transitioned into mining industry in the 1930’s. Wanting to

preserve the natural beauty of the desert plant species, the land was designated as a National

Monument in 1936 and more recently a National Park in 1994. Recent visitor is reported to be

around 1.4 million annual visitors with trends showing an annual increase in visitation (Figure 2)

since 1979 when statistics were first gathered.

Figure 1: Joshua Tree Location in Southern California (from NPS.gov)

10 | P a g e

Figure 2: Annual Visitation (Source: irma.nps.gov)

In recent years, Joshua Tree National Park has been experiencing an increase in visitation

at a level that has begun to exceed the parks infrastructure capacity. This has been observed in

parking and entrance fee station congestion during weekends. Parking congestion has led to

overflow parking issues where visitors park in undesignated spaces along park roads leading to

dangerous situations for pedestrians and damage to vegetation. Parking problems and entrance

fee congestion degrade the visitor experience. In addition, the Park is only accessible by

personal vehicle which limits the accessibility to the Park.

Beyond visitor experience, parking overflow, entrance station congestion, and

accessibility issues, the Park also faces issues with air quality. Situated in the context of the

Coachella Valley and Los Angeles air basin, Joshua Tree NP experiences periods of heavy air

pollution as a result of its location. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has decreed the

air in Joshua Tree NP to exceed the ozone concentration levels. Air pollution is especially

damaging to the desert plants and therefore all methods for reducing air pollution and promoting

environmental sustainability in and around the Park need to be considered.

Several solutions to the multifaceted issues faced by the Park can be made through

transportation improvements. For example, facing similar air pollution issues, Zion National

Park reduced air pollution by disallowing personal vehicles to travel within the Park and

11 | P a g e

providing reduced emission shuttles to transport visitors from entrance stations to major sites

within the Park. Figure 3 depicts the confluence of current issues faced by Joshua Tree NP.

The optimal solution should be able to address each issue. Parking lot expansion is a simple and

potentially low cost solution to address parking overflow issues and improve the visitor

experience. However, under this solution scenario entrance station congestion would persist,

accessible options would remain unchanged (i.e. personal vehicle would remain the only option

for park access), and environmental goals such as reducing air pollution would not be achieved.

Following the lead of other Parks such as Zion NP, Grand Canyon NP, and Yosemite NP, a more

robust solution is to introduce transit options.

Figure 3: Issues Affecting Joshua Tree National Park and Potential Solutions

Transit has the potential to address all five of the major issues facing Joshua Tree NP. A

voluntary use transit system could effectively reduce entrance station congestion and parking

overflow by reducing the number of cars that enter the Park. Accessibility would improve by

providing an alternative to personal vehicles. Together these three benefits would improve

visitor experience by allowing visitors to access major sites in the Park without the

inconvenience of searching for parking or waiting at an entrance station. Lastly, by offsetting a

Accessibility

Entrance Station

Congestion

Parking Overflow

Environ-mental

Sustainability

Visitor Experience

Transit

12 | P a g e

number of personal vehicles with fuel efficient, clean emission buses, potential environmental

benefits such as reduced emissions can be achieved thus leading to a more environmentally

sustainable system.

In order to determine if transit is indeed a feasible option for the Park, the National Parks

Conservation Association and Joshua Tree National Park tasked the University of California,

Irvine, Institute of Transportation Engineers Student Chapter to conduct a transit feasibility

study. The scope of this study includes a visitor survey, a parking analysis, the design of three

transit routing and infrastructure alternatives, comparison between different transit technologies,

and funding and finance options.

The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the existing conditions including

popular sites within and around the Park, the transportation system, and parking conditions.

Chapter 3 introduces the visitor survey conducted as part of the study to determine travel patterns

and transit interest. Chapter 4 discusses the results of a parking lot usage survey. Chapter 5

presents the three route alternatives and their corresponding infrastructure needs. Chapter 6

highlights the potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed transit system. Chapter 7

discusses the sustainable transit technology alternatives along with a summary of air pollutants.

Chapter 8 summarizes the costs and funding opportunities of the proposed transit system

including the options to lease or purchase shuttle buses. The report concludes with a final

recommendation regarding the route alternative, transit technology, and financing structure in

Chapter 9.

13 | P a g e

Chapter 2: Existing Conditions

2.1 Locations within the Park Joshua Tree National Park has several attractions. According to a visitor study conducted

by the University of Idaho, the most popular locations were the Jumbo Rocks Area, Hidden

Valley and the Joshua Tree Visitor Center. According to the survey results, respectively, 55%,

50%, 50%, of the 490 visitor groups visited these locations during their trip. However, the order

of visitation varied; the most popular first stop was the Joshua Tree Visitor Center, followed by

the Oasis Visitor Center, and lastly, the Cottonwood Visitor Center. The information collected

from the rangers fall in line with the survey results. According to the park rangers of Joshua

Tree, popular locations include: Jumbo Rocks/Skull Rock, Hidden Valley, Quail Springs, Black

Rock, Boy Scout Trail/Indian Cove, Keys View, Barker Dam, Cholla Garden, and Cottonwood

Springs.

Joshua Tree National Park has a variety of activities for the outdoor enthusiasts. One of

the main attractions of the park is the campsites and hiking trails. There are a total of eight

campgrounds: Belle, Black Rock, Cottonwood, Hidden Valley, Indian Cove, Jumbo Rocks,

Ryan, and White Tank. The largest three campgrounds are Jumbo Rocks, Indian Cove, and Black

Rock, with 124 sites, 101 sites, and 100 sites respectively. Due to the large capacity of these

campsites as well as surrounding attractions, these sites are the most popular when it comes to

camping.

Transportation options within the Park are limited to personal vehicles or tour buses

operated by tour companies. According to the 2010 Visitor Survey, 99% of visitors enter the

park in personal vehicles (only 1% reported participation with commercial tour group).

2.2 Locations Outside the Park The main attractions of this region are within Park grounds with the exception of several

sites located in the surrounding cities. More importantly, within the Park, only minimal impact

camping facilities are provided, so many visitors stay overnight the over 30 hotels and motels

located in the surrounding cities of Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree, and Yucca Valley, as well as

is in the Coachella Valley stretching from Desert Hot Springs in the northwest to Coachella in

the southeast.

14 | P a g e

Transportation options outside the Park include public transit. The Morongo Basin

Transit Authority currently implements routes between Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms

along State Route 62, with stops at both the Joshua Tree Visitor Center and the Oasis Visitor

Center. Park visitors staying in the surrounding cities can choose to use the Morongo Basin

Transit system to access the visitor centers, but would not be able to travel within the Park on

public transit, since the public transit service does not operate within the Park.

2.3 Road Networks Surrounding Network

Joshua Tree National Park is bordered by several freeways. State Road (SR) 62 borders

the park to the north, I-10 borders the southern end, and SR 177 borders the park to the east.

Several other freeways feed into those that border the national park. SR 247 feeds into SR 62

toward the western half of the park. SR 111 feeds into the I-10 toward the western half of the

park and also runs relatively parallel to the I-10 from around the Palm Springs area to the Mecca

area. SR 78 feeds into I-10 from the south and is located east of the national park. Lastly, SR 95

is located east of the national park and connects I-10 and SR 62. Dillon Road, although not a

freeway, connects I-10 and SR 62 from around the Coachella area to the Palm Springs area.

Park Network

Within the park is a network of paved, unpaved, and 4-wheel-drive roads. Figure 4 shows

the road system for the north end of the Park near the Joshua Tree and Twentynine Palms

entrances. Figure 5 shows the road system at the Cottonwood entrance located in the southern

area of the Park. The paved roads, in particular, allow access to many of the Park’s attractions.

Park Boulevard, a paved road, allows access into the park from the SR 62 through the West

Entrance Station. The Utah Trail also allows access into the park from the SR 62 but through the

North Entrance Station. Roughly 8 miles south of the SR 62 is Loop Road, which connects both

Park Boulevard and Utah Trail. Indian Cove Road is located between the West Entrance Station

and the North Entrance Station and leads to Indian Cove, a popular park attraction. Canyon

Road, located between Indian Cove Road and North Entrance Station, allows access to a hiking

trail leading to 49 Palms Oasis, one of the park attractions. The Pinto Basin Road along with the

Cottonwood Springs Road allows access into the park from the I-10 through the southern

entrance. Pinto Basin Road connects to the Loop Road near the northern entrance.

15 | P a g e

The unpaved roads in the Joshua Tree National Park tend to branch off from the paved

roads and allow access to other park attractions. One of the notable unpaved roads is La Contenta

Road, located between the SR 247 and the western entrance, and it allows access to Eureka Peak

and the California Riding and Hiking Trail. Hidden Valley Road allows access to Keys Ranch

from Park Boulevard. Queen Valley Road allows access to the Desert Queen Mine from Loop

Road.

Lastly, there are several 4-wheel-drive roads that provide accessibility to more park

attractions. Berdoo Canyon Road connects Dillon Road to Loop Road. Old Dale Road, also

known as Mecca Dale Road, and Gold Crown Road connect the SR 62 to Pinto Basin Road

toward the southern entrance. Black Eagle Mine Road branches from Pinto Basin Road and

allows access to facilities past the Eagle Mountains, where the road eventually connects with the

SR 177 and the I-10. Pinkham Canyon Road and Thermal Canyon Road allow access to the

Cottonwood Mountains beginning from the Cottonwood Visitor Center located near the southern

entrance of the park. Depending on the shuttle technologies and visitor demand, some of these

roads can be used when planning routes for the transit system.

Figure 4: Northeast Park Map (Source: www.nps.gov/jotr)

16 | P a g e

Figure 5: South entrance park map (Source: www.nps.gov/jotr)

2.4 Parking

Joshua Tree National Park currently has approximately 787 parking spots including

spaces in both paved and unpaved areas and along the curb. This estimate was developed

assuming an average parking space size has the dimensions of 9 x 18 ft. Most large parking lots

can generally be found in popular visitor sites such as Hidden Valley and Barker Dam. Table 19

of Section C.1 in the Appendix summarizes parking lot capacities at each location identified in

Figure 6. Additionally, this table identifies whether restroom facilities, RV parking, and handicap

parking are available. Some parking lot conditions are also summarized.

17 | P a g e

Figure 6: Location of Existing Parking Areas in Joshua Tree

A lack of parking is evident during high visitation periods. This lack of parking

availability is causing dangerous scenarios as visitors begin to park in non-designated areas such

as the sides of the road. To get a better understanding of the severity of this issue and the

concerns of park visitors, a visitor survey and a parking survey were conducted.

18 | P a g e

Chapter 3: Visitor Survey

The goal of creating and distributing a survey was to outline the views and opinions of

park guests concerning the incorporation of a transit system within the park. This provides

important information and data for determining transit demand and designing route alternatives.

The survey covers a variety of topics including basic demographic questions, popular park

locations, popular route choices, popular mode choices, route frequencies, and possible shuttle

fees to park visitors if the shuttle system were to be implemented. The survey contains 24

questions. Questions pertaining to popular locations and trip frequencies were utilized to

determine routing and infrastructure locations, while questions concerning cost and technology

preferences were used to determine funding and sustainable shuttle options.

Because the survey was conducted on human subjects an extensive permitting process

was conducted by UC Irvine’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This process required an

extensive review of the survey procedures and questionnaire. Procedures concerning public

interaction and survey participation solicitation were fully detailed through IRB specifications.

All students administering the survey were required to complete IRB training.

The survey was administered by two methods: a paper based survey and an online

survey. The paper based survey was distributed within the Park by the ITE student chapter

members and the online survey was sent to several email listserves belonging to the NPCA. The

online version of the survey was generated on the UC Irvine Electronic Education Environment

(EEE) system. Along with the survey questionnaire the ITE team developed an email script,

survey information card, and survey information page. The survey information page detailed all

the necessary information about the surveys purpose and key information required by the IRB.

The information card was created to be distributed at Joshua Tree National Park and surrounding

businesses. This card contained the link to the online survey. Lastly, an email script was created

also containing the link to the online survey. All of these documents including the protocol

narrative can be found in Appendix A.

The final draft of the survey was published and released to the public on April 11th and

was granted permission to be distributed by Joshua Tree National Park. The responses from the

19 | P a g e

hard copy survey were organized and manually inputted into the EEE system to systematically

organize all the results.

3.1 Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire contains questions related to general visitor demographics and park

usage as well as transit preferences. Demographic and usage questions follow the same format

as those used in the University of Idaho 2010 Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Study. The

format of questions was maintained so that comparisons could be drawn between 2010 and 2014

visitor characteristics. These questions concerned the activities, sites visited, order of sites

visited, reasons for visiting the park, trip duration, visitor group characteristics such as age and

group size, and accommodations used inside and outside of the park. Additional questions

unique to the survey conducted for this report included parking issues such as the amount of time

spent searching for a parking space and vehicle type.

The transit preference questions were loosely based on those used in the Sustainable

Transit Feasibility Study for the Mojave National Preserve conducted in 2009 by the University

of California, Irvine, Institute of Transportation Studies. Questions included visitors’ willingness

to use transit, previous experience with transit in National Parks, preferred transit system

characteristics (frequency, type of bus, number of stops, etc.), and willingness to pay for transit

services. Listed below is a selected sample of transit preference questions used in the survey. A

brief explanation is provided to explain the purpose of the question.

Sample Survey Questions

Question (17): How often would a shuttle need to pass by a stop (pick-up point) for you to

consider using the service in Joshua Tree National Park?

□ Would not use □ every 15 minutes □ every 30 minutes

□ Every hour □ every 2 hours □ Every 4 hours

Purpose: Understanding the duration a visitor is willing to spend at a park site indicates

potential shuttle routes and route frequencies for consideration.

20 | P a g e

Question (18): On a future visit, how important would the following services and characteristics

of a shuttle system be? Please indicate the importance of each characteristic with ‘1’ indicating

‘not important’ and ‘5’ indicating ‘very important’.

Monday-Friday shuttle service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Frequency of shuttle service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ability to take bikes on shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ability to transport gear on shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

On-board orientation by Park Ranger □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

On-board orientation by TV or audio

recording □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Alternative fuel shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ticket price □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Purpose: Indicates the level of preference for the above alternatives. If all visitors indicate

preferences for particular alternatives, those alternatives will hold high importance in the final

park shuttle system design.

3.2 Survey Procedure

The survey distribution activities took place at Joshua Tree National Park over peak

visitation days during the spring. Surveys were distributed between 7am and 4pm during

daylight hours, although the park operates 24 hours per day. Recruitment of survey participants

followed a non-probability based approach, i.e. accidental or convenience sampling similar to

that used in the 2010 University of Idaho Visitor Study. Surveys were distributed in person in a

systematic process to visitor groups two high volume sites: Hidden Valley and Barker Dam.

Based on the 2010 survey of the 837 visitor groups approached for participation, 767

(91.6%) accepted questionnaires with the per site volumes of participants ranging from 20 to 165

visitors representing 3 to 22% of the total visitor volume, respectively. Thus, applying the same

acceptance rate, around 185 completed surveys per day were expected to be collected total at the

two sites. This number of completed surveys is within the appropriate sample size for analysis

(e.g. > 30 samples for statistical significance).

21 | P a g e

The survey administration took place as follows. Visitors were briefly introduced to the

survey and were asked if they would like to participate. One individual from each visitor group,

18 years of age or older, was allowed to participate. If they agreed to participate they were

guided to read the survey information sheet and to ask any questions if needed. The survey took

approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Visitors who did not wish to participate after being

approached by the survey team were given the survey information card containing the link to the

online survey and kindly asked to participate at their own convenience.

3.3 Survey Distribution

The survey was distributed on April 12 and April 13 by the ITE student Chapter. On Day

1, Saturday, the group arrived in the park at 8am. A group of 2 students went to the Hidden

Valley parking lot while another group of 3 students went to the Barker Dam parking lot.

Students approached park guests, explained our project to them, and asked if they would be

willing to take our survey. About half of the visitor groups who were approached participated in

the survey, and those who did not participate were given a information card to have access to the

online survey. On average the survey took between 5 and 10 minutes for guests to fill out. The

date, time, and location were written on the front of each survey once it was completed. Survey

distribution on Saturday concluded at 4pm.

On Sunday, students arrived in the park at 9am and stayed until 3pm. These shorter hours

were selected due to the limited number of people in the early morning and late afternoon on the

previous day. While Saturday was more crowded (the Barker Dam lot was full by 1pm), we

noticed a higher visitor response rate on Sunday.

3.4 Analysis of Survey Responses

A total of 213 surveys were collected with 99 collected on the first day and 114 collected

on the second day. To convert the paper responses to an electronic spreadsheet, each survey was

manually entered into a modified version of the EEE online survey. Along with the question

responses, each survey was labeled with an identification number so the paper copy can be

matched with the electronic copy. In the following section a summary of select survey results

pertaining to transit preferences are shown. The remaining questions and the corresponding

results can be found in Appendix A.1.

22 | P a g e

Select Survey Results

Question (13) If you arrived in a personal vehicle to the current site, how much time did it take

for you to find a parking spot?

Figure 7: Average time to find parking

The majority of visitors (88%) reporting finding parking immediately upon arriving to the

selected site. Roughly 10% of visitors struggled to find parking for more than 5 minutes. In a

related question, visitors were asked to state the amount of time they would be willing to spend

searching for parking before considering transit. The majority of visitors were unwilling to wait

longer than 5 minutes. Park guests felt that as waiting time for parking spaces increased, they

would be more willing to utilize the shuttle services. This would mean that as the number of

people entering the park increases as Joshua Tree National Park has seen in recent years, guests

will be increasingly likely to utilize the service.

Question (16): The proposed Park Shuttle System for Joshua Tree National Park would allow

visitors to park for free at the entrance stations and use the shuttle to visit the major sites within

the Park. If such a Park Shuttle System existed within Joshua Tree National Park, would you

have considered using the shuttle system for this visit today?

Question (19): Which of the amounts listed below best describes the most you would pay per

person per day (unlimited rides) to use a Park Shuttle System that operated between sites within

23 | P a g e

the Park (not including Indian Cove and Black Rock areas)? Assume that the Park entry fee still

applies, parking is available for free at the entrance stations, and that the shuttle runs at least

every hour.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Stated willingness to use and pay for transit

Overall, the transit system is welcomed by park guests, where 54% of survey respondents

showed interest in using a shuttle during their visit. Results also indicated that 31% of guests

24 | P a g e

would be willing to pay an additional $5-6 for the transit service which would provide a good

source of funding for the operations and maintenance of the system.

Question (23): Why would you not consider taking a Park Shuttle System within Joshua Tree

National Park? Please check all that apply. Leave blank if you would consider using a shuttle

service.

Table 1: Concerns about transit

Concern % of Responses

I don’t think traffic and parking congestion are severe enough for a shuttle

system to be necessary.

24%

I’m uncomfortable leaving my vehicle in a parking lot. 5%

I’m unsure if the frequency of the service would accommodate my planned

activities.

26%

Planned activities in the Park require equipment, which would be

inconvenient to take on a shuttle.

19%

I would not feel safe in the Park without access to my private vehicle. 3%

I need my own personal vehicle. 11%

Other 12%

There were many concerns that visitors had about such a system, however. These

included concern about the frequency of the shuttle service (26% of responses) and desire to

participate in activities that require equipment (19%). Approximately 24% of stated concerns

were about current conditions in the park not warranting a transit system.

3.5 Conclusion

Generally guests were interested in a transit system but only when the system could

provide adequate service frequency and have the ability to transport gear. Since the Park is a

major rock climbing destination, visitors expressed the need to have room on the shuttle for

climbing gear. In ranking shuttle characteristics, frequency was the most important with ticket

prices the second most important. Other important findings are summarized below:

54% of visitors indicated willingness to use a shuttle system in the Park.

Most visitors (38%) would like a shuttle to pass by a stop every 30 minutes; only 11%

indicated that hourly service was acceptable.

25 | P a g e

Frequency, ability to transport gear, and ticket price were ranked first, second, and third most

important, respectively.

Onboard orientation services including orientation by a Ranger or video/audio formats, were

not ranked as important characteristics of the shuttle system. Also, the ability to transport

bikes was not ranked as important.

Visitors showed some interest in an alternative fuel shuttle, ranking it of more importance

than onboard orientation and bike transport.

Most people are willing to spend $5-6 for unlimited rides on the Park shuttle.

The majority of visitors (63%) were not interested in additional transit services to other

regional cities. Those that were interested were willing to pay $5-6 (28% of responses).

The major concerns against transit were uncertainty about service frequency, thinking that

congestion levels do not yet warrant transit system implementation, and feeling of

inconvenience of carry equipment around on the shuttle.

26 | P a g e

Chapter 4: Parking Study

One of the major concerns leading to the investigation of transit feasibility is parking

congestion. Park staff reported that many of the most popular sites within the Park experience

parking congestion during busy weekend periods. On busy weekends, parking lots that

experience the most activity have a demand that exceeds the supply. This causes the respective

lots to be filled over capacity and results in visitors parking their cars along the side of the road

or in undesignated spacing causing damage to vegetation and curbs thus posing a threat to the

surrounding natural environment. In addition to overflow parking issues, congestion in parking

lots forces visitors to possibly forego a planned visit to that site altogether. Overflow parking is

also a safety concern as visitors exiting their vehicles parked along the road are exposed to

vehicle traveling on that road at full speed.

In order to determine the current parking usage characteristics, a parking study analysis

was performed to collected data on which lots were the most and least occupied and the average

time a vehicle would spend in each lot. The parking study analyzes the parking data in three

ways: by origin-destination, average time spent, and parking lot occupancy rate.

The two-day parking study was performed during President’s Day weekend on Saturday

(02/15/14) and Sunday (02/16/14) from 9am to 4pm. This weekend was selected because it is

known to have a high visitation rate compared to other days. The focus of the study was on five

of the most popular sites: Hidden Valley, Barker Dam, Cholla Cactus, Jumbo Rocks, and Keys

View. Throughout the study, license plate numbers were collected every hour at each of these

five sites. This information was then used to analyze parking lot occupancy rates, average time

spent at each site, and visitor travel patterns among the five study areas. This information aided

in determining the severity of parking congestion and the routes that could be developed for the

proposed shuttle system.

4.1 Occupancy Rate Pattern

The parking occupancy rate pattern is a way of measuring parking lot utilization to

determine the amount of visitor activity and interest. By comparing the number of vehicles

stationed in a parking lot (demand) with the amount of parking spaces available (supply), unique

usage rates are found. This identifies which site destinations within the park experience the most

27 | P a g e

activity and congestion. In addition, determining an occupancy rate pattern for each individual

parking lot in Joshua Tree National Park will help identify popular sites, which will aid in

designing the shuttle route system.

A parking lot occupancy rate for each individual parking lot in Joshua Tree National Park

was found by dividing the total hourly number of vehicles parked in the lot by the capacity of the

lot. To determine the total hourly number of vehicles, hourly vehicle counts were conducted by

students at the University of California, Irvine for the duration of both study days. A summary of

hourly vehicle counts can be found in Tables 16 and 17 of Section B.1 of the Appendix. Table 2

shows the parking lot capacities based on estimates from the previously mentioned parking lot

sizes.

Table 2: Current Parking Lot Capacities for Joshua Tree National Park

Parking Lot Parking Capacity (# of spots)

Cholla Cactus 22

Hidden Valley 127

Barker Dam 143

Jumbo Rock 26

Key’s View 32

A final occupancy rate was found, in terms of percentages, for each hour of the study

period for both days. A summary of the final occupancy rates are shown in Figure 9. These

figures give insight into how full each of the lots become throughout the day, and also

determines the peak hours of each individual lot. An analysis of the data shows that, with the

exception of Barker Dam, all parking lots exceeded their maximum capacity by 12:00 PM. The

most popular sites are Cholla Cactus, Key’s View, and Jumbo Rocks. Jumbo Rocks experiences

the highest capacity, exceeding 140% for both days. Ultimately, these high parking demands

indicate that a shuttle system would be beneficial to alleviate congestion.

28 | P a g e

(a) Day 1

(b) Day 2

Figure 9: Parking Lot Occupancy Rates

29 | P a g e

4.2 Average Stay Pattern

The average stay pattern shows the length of stay for vehicles at each of the five study

locations. This analysis shows which lots have the most and least vehicles, and which lots are

occupied for the longest and shortest times. The analysis can provide useful information such as

what lots should be expanded, if new lots are needed, where the placements of new lots should

be, which lots are possibly not needed, or where the roads may be more congested.

The minimum, average, and maximum time a vehicle remained parked at each lot was

calculated and summarized in the graphs depicted through Figure 10. The least amount of time

that can be identified is one hour since license plate numbers were collected in one hour

intervals. The highest number that can be observed is eight hours because the parking study was

conducted for eight hours. The Day 1 (Saturday) graph indicates that the minimum average

parked time was about 1.01 hours. The maximum average time spent was about 2.80 hours

which was recorded from Barker’s Dam lot 1 from day 1. The total average of all the lots came

out to be about 1.64 hours.

The data was also plotted as histograms (Figure 11) to demonstrate how many hours

vehicles were parked. The histograms indicate that most vehicles stayed at one location for one

hour or less for both days. Day 1 had 961 vehicles and day 2 had 1220 vehicles parked for 1 hour

in their lots. The least number of vehicles stayed for the maximum of 8 hours. Day 1 and day 2

lots had 0 vehicles and 7 vehicles parked for 8 hours respectively.

30 | P a g e

Figure 10: Graph of minimum, average, and maximum length of stay for each lot

31 | P a g e

Figure 11: Distribution of number of vehicles parked for a number of hours

32 | P a g e

4.3 Origin Destination Data

An origin - destination analysis was performed to determine the travel patterns within the

five study sites. The origin-destination results illustrated in Table 3 show the number of vehicle

trips between these areas for Day 1 and Day 2. The left columns on these tables indicate the

starting point, while top row indicate the ending point. The ‘other’ column shows the trips that

started at one of the study sites, but ended in a location that was not included in the study.

Table 3: Origin Destination Summary

DAY 1 CC HV BD JR KV Other

Total

w/o

other

TOTAL

by

Origin

Cholla Cactus (CC) -- 3 2 2 5 118 12 130

Hidden Valley (HV) 4 -- 27 5 12 397 48 445

Barker Dam (BD) 6 16 -- 4 14 276 40 316

Jumbo Rock (JR) 3 4 7 -- 3 73 17 90

Keys View (KV) 8 9 5 4 -- 159 26 185

TOTAL by

Destination 21 32 41 15 34 1023

DAY 2 CC HV BD JR KV Other

Total

w/o

other

TOTAL

by

Origin

Cholla Cactus (CC) -- 5 5 1 5 109 16 125

Hidden Valley (HV) 6 -- 36 7 26 407 75 482

Barker Dam (BD) 2 16 -- 10 17 264 45 309

Jumbo Rock (JR) 3 4 4 -- 3 80 14 94

Keys View (KV) 5 6 6 5 -- 138 22 160

TOTAL by

Destination 16 31 51 23 51 998

From the number of trips summarized above, it can be determined that Hidden Valley

and Barker Dam are the most popular sites. It can also be determined that most trips began in

Hidden Valley followed with Barker Dam, and Keys View. After Keys View, most vehicles

33 | P a g e

either returned to the Hidden Valley/ Barker Dam area or they headed east toward Jumbo Rocks

or Cholla Cactus. Based on the results from day two, most vehicles traveled to Cholla Cactus

before Jumbo Rock after visiting Keys View.

34 | P a g e

Chapter 5: Transit Routing & Infrastructure

5.1 Transit Ridership Estimation

Transit ridership, i.e. the percent of visitors that will use transit, is one of the most

difficult parameters to predict when designing a transit system. This sentiment holds true for

municipal public transit systems but becomes an even more difficult issue for National Park

settings where each Park poses vastly different environmental and usage characteristics. Park

characteristics can play a huge role in how many visitors are attracted to transit. For example,

Joshua Tree NP is an international rock climbing destination where visitors will need to transport

climbing gear and move between very spread out sites across the Park’s 800,000 acres. It would

be naïve to assume that this park could have the same demand for transit as a NP where visitor

activities are concentrated around hiking, the natural landscape provides shade, and key

visitation sites are spatially dense. Therefore, in order to obtain an accurate prediction of

potential transit use for Joshua Tree National Park, transit ridership data from other National

Parks with existing transit systems and as similar as possible characteristics were reviewed for

comparison.

Two important considerations limited the number of Parks to be considered in the

comparison: transit system operations and data availability. First, only parks with free transit

systems were included in the analysis since it was predetermined that the Joshua Tree system

would not be mandatory. Second, of the parks with voluntary use systems, only those with

publicly available ridership data could be used. This limited the comparison scope to two parks:

Rocky Mountain NP and Acadia NP. While neither of the parks can truly represent Joshua Tree

NP’s natural setting, a best attempt was made to select from the two parks the one that most

closely matched Joshua Tree NP in terms of park size, number of sites, activities, and visitor

characteristics.

The Alternative Transportation System Demand Estimation for Federal Land

Management Agencies report summarized which characteristics of a park and its visitors have

the greatest influence on transit ridership. The report stated that transit systems in federal public

land sites needed to accommodate for certain factors such as type of visiting group, purpose of

visit, length of stay, and age group of visitors. Using visitor survey data from the Park Studies

35 | P a g e

Unit at the University of Idaho, data concerning visitor characteristics were collected for Rocky

Mountain and Acadia NPs.

The first characteristic to compare is group type. Group type affects percent ridership

through the demand to use an actual system. For example, families may lean towards not using

the transit system since it would be more comfortable to stay in one vehicle together. Visitor

groups were split up into four categories: Friends and Family, Friends, Alone, and Family and

plotted onto a bar graph to compare the national parks. Figure 12 compares the two parks to

Joshua Tree NP. Joshua Tree NP most resembles Rocky Mountain National Park in terms of

group type.

Figure 12: Visitation by Group Type

Group size will affect percent ridership and bus capacity because it determines whether

or not a large group can even use the transit system. Figure 13 shows the group size comparison

between the parks. Rocky Mountain and Joshua Tree NPs are the most similar in terms of group

size. Acadia NP appears to have a much larger proportion of larger groups (‘5 or more’).

36 | P a g e

Figure 13: Visitation by Group Size

Activity participation is most closely related to the natural characteristics of the park. For

instance, Joshua Tree NP is popular for rock climbing because of the attractive rock formations

in the park. Activity participation is also a predictor of transit usage since activities that require

lots of personal equipment many inhibit transit usage. Figure 14 shows that a significant amount

of activities that visitors are involved in at Rocky Mountain NP match the types of activities

done at Joshua Tree NP. Both parks saw a similar percentage of visitors that go to each

respective national park to sightsee.

Figure 14: Visitation by Activity Type

37 | P a g e

Aside from the studies completed above, a variety of other significant categories such as

age groups and visitor origin (i.e. in-state, out-of-state, vs. international) were analyzed. The left

column of Table 4 summarizes the categories that were used for comparison. The two right

columns summarize the average percent difference for the given category. The percent

differences was computed by subtracting the category value of the park (Rocky Mtn. or Acadia)

from the corresponding category value for Joshua Tree NP, and then averaging the differences

across all categories. A difference closer to 100% signifies a large difference in that

characteristic.

Table 4: Park Comparison

Analysis Category Rocky Mountain NP Acadia NP

Group Size 16% 42%

Group Type 11% 38%

Visitor Origin 52% 72%

International Visitors 18% 8%

Age Group 22% 46%

Primary Activity during Visit 74% 81%

Land Size 523,917 742,356

Number of Campsites 88 211

Number of Sites with Visitation over 25% 5 4

Weighted Score Comparison

While the percent difference values in the previous table are informative individually, a

numerical combination of each category would better illustrate which park was overall more

similar to Joshua Tree NP. To combine individual values, a weighted score was calculated.

Weights are introduced because not all categories equally affect transit ridership. Larger weights

are given to categories that would be more important indicators of transit usage according to the

Alternative Transportation System Demand Estimation for Federal Land Management Agencies

report. For example, group size and primary activity type have a strong impact on percent

ridership, so those categories received the highest weights in this analysis. Table 5 shows the

weights that were used for each category.

38 | P a g e

Table 5: Weights used for Weight Analysis

Category Weights

Group Size 20

Group Type 15

Visitor Origin 15

International Visitors 10

Age Group 15

Primary Activity during Visit 25

A weighted sum is calculated for each of the parks according to the following equation:

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( )

A weighted score of high value indicates more difference between characteristics whereas a

lower score indicates more similarity. The weighted score for Rocky Mountain NP was

calculated to be 36 and for Acadia NP the score was 52. Thus, the conclusion is that Rocky

Mountain NP is most similar to Joshua Tree NP so the transit ridership will be estimated based

on that of Rocky Mountain NP.

Estimating Ridership

The park to park comparison indicated that Rocky Mountain NP percent ridership could

be a general indicator for transit usage at Joshua Tree NP. Ridership data for Rocky Mountain

NP was pulled from the Grand Teton National Park Public Transit Business Plan (2009). This

report provided annual visitation and transit ridership from 1999 to 2007. Figure 15 shows the

percent ridership for Rocky Mountain NP from 1999 to 2007.

A ridership forecast was made to the current year (2014) based on the best fit line through

the historical ridership data. Using this model, a percent ridership of 18.5% was predicted for

Rocky Mountain National Park for the year 2014 and hence this is what will be used for Joshua

Tree National Park.

39 | P a g e

Figure 15: Transit Ridership Data from Rocky Mountain and Acadia NP

5.2 Daily Travel Demand Prediction

In order to estimate daily demand for transit, the ridership prediction of 18.5% needs to

be applied to the visitation statistics for Joshua Tree NP. Visitation is provided as annual data,

so the following section outlines the process for converting the annual visitation to daily demand

for transit.

The annual visitation statistics for Joshua Tree National Park is provided by the NPS

(National Park Service) beginning in 1979 and continuing until 2013. Over the last several years,

i.e. 2011 to 2013, visitation appears to have reached a plateau around 1.4 million annual visitors.

Figure 16 shows the monthly visitation trends for 2013. Spring months, March and April,

experience the highest visitation while the autumn months, September and October, experience

the lowest visitation volumes.

40 | P a g e

Figure 16: Monthly visitation for 2013

The Transportation Planning Process for Transit in Federal Land Management Areas

Report recommends providing transit to meet the demands on the 90th

percentile day. The report

states that transportation systems are not typically designed to accommodate conditions on the

busiest day of the year, but rather that planning based on the 90th

percentile day may be more

appropriate. The data used for this project provides visitation at the monthly level, so daily

visitation numbers are not directly available. To estimate the 90th

percentile day, first the 90th

percentile visitation volume was determined by computing the 90th

percentile visitation based on

the monthly data. Figure 17 shows the 90th

percentile monthly visitation observations for 1979-

2013. The trend is increasing, as was previously noted in the annual visitation. For the purposes

of this report, the 90th

percentile of the most recent year, 2013, will be used for analysis. The 90th

percentile of monthly visitation for 2013 was 189,957 visitors. This is approximately, 7,000 less

than the max visitation which takes place in March.

41 | P a g e

Figure 17: 90th

Percentile Monthly Visitation

To determine transit system frequencies and number of buses, the 90th percentile

monthly visitation was further disaggregated into daily volume and finally split into weekday

and weekend volumes.

To obtain weekly transit passenger trips, the 90th

percentile monthly volume (189,957

visitors per month) was divided by the average number of weeks per month, 4.348 weeks per

month (365.25 days per year/ 12 months per year / 7 days per week). The weekly volume of

passenger trips was further reduced by applying the fraction of visits that occur on Saturdays,

approximately 0.288 Saturday visitors per week. This ratio was derived from the visitation data

provided by the Joshua Tree Visitor Center staff and volunteers. The ratio is the number of

Saturday visits divided by the total number of weekly visits. Their reports show that the weekend

traffic is approximately 48.36% of the weekly number of visits and that Saturday is the busiest

day out of the week accounting for 59.6% of weekend visits during the peak visitation months of

February through May. By these calculations, the approximate number of visitors per Saturday is

11,800 visitors. This formulation is summarized as:

(

) (

) (

)

42 | P a g e

Lastly, the hourly visitation is an important aspect of designing the shuttle system.

Transportation Planning Process for Transit in Federal Land Management Areas Report

suggests using the maximum load point, which is the segment and time of route where ridership

reaches its peak. Maximum load point is important in transit planning as it indicates the

maximum level of demand for which this system will be planned. To obtain the maximum load

point, the hourly distribution of visitors collected by the UCI ITE on February 15th

and 16th

was

used. For this study, vehicles in the parking lots of the most popular park attractions were

recorded hourly from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. The hourly volumes to capacity ratios at each lot are

shown in Figure 18. This figure can be interpreted as the number of parking spots occupied

divided by the number of spots available. When the number exceeds 100%, this indicates an

overflow parking situation. In this figure, the peak hour occurs from 1 PM (13:00) to 2 PM

(14:00). A ratio of the number of vehicles for that peak period to the total number of vehicles in

the entire study period, or 0.1625 in this case, was applied to the 90th

percentile daily visits to

obtain the maximum load point. This results in a total number of Saturday peak hour visits of

2,046 visitors. In the next section we discuss the estimation of transit riders from the total

number of visitors.

Figure 18: Hourly visitation distribution from the UCI Parking Study

43 | P a g e

A ridership of 18.5% total visitation, provided through comparing and contrasting other

national parks with similar characteristics, was applied to the hourly estimated volume obtained

though the methodology described in the previous section. The ‘Number of Saturday Peak Hour

Riders’ is calculated by applying the transit ridership rate (18.5%) to the number of hourly

visitors (2,046 visitors) as summarized in the following equation:

( ) ( )

Therefore, the total number of hourly riders is approximately 368 riders per hour.

5.3 Route Alternatives & Infrastructure Needs

Three alternatives were proposed to transport visitors throughout Joshua Tree NP. Each

alternative includes stops at popular sites within the park, as indicated by the University of Idaho

2010 Visitor Demand Survey of Joshua Tree National Park and the ITE UCI Chapter Visitor

Demand Survey. Each route also includes stops between the popular sites at various starting and

ending points for hiking trails within the park to serve all types of visitors.

In an effort to make a visit to Joshua Tree National Park pleasant and safe, various shuttle

system infrastructure was determined based on visitor needs and safety. Other national parks

with successful transit systems were researched and used as a reference to determine the

necessary infrastructure to support the proposed shuttle system. Proposed infrastructure includes

bus stops that come with a paved landing area, shelter/canopies, sitting benches, and an

information panel to display shuttle bus route maps and schedules. Additional infrastructure

include parking lots near the Joshua Tree Visitor Center and the Oasis Visitor Center, parking

and shuttle signage, parallel bus bays, digital two-way radio emergency call boxes, solar

powered light poles, crosswalk striping, restrooms, and respective bus technologies are all also

included in the proposed infrastructure. Sample infrastructure photos can be found in Section B.2

of the Appendix.

The locations of the entire proposed infrastructure are dependent on the three shuttle

route alternatives. With the installation of these public facilities come concerns for protecting the

natural environment. It can be very challenging to install infrastructure within a national park,

mainly due to concerns of the facilities being too close in proximity to wilderness boundaries.

44 | P a g e

These concerns will need to be accounted for when installing all shuttle stop facilities. Approval

may be hard to gain with new facilities being built, as it may negatively impact the

environmental quality or natural beauty of the Park. However, because the transit will benefit the

Park in many ways, the said facilities will be needed to facilitate the transit service.

Associated infrastructure costs came from various sources such as public contract bid

summaries, transit feasibility reports and other online research. Included in all three alternatives

are the required infrastructure for the possible bus technologies. Cost estimates for the use of

three different transit technologies, which are propane buses, hybrid buses, and biodiesel buses,

are provided.

5.2.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 will serve visitors entering through the West Entrance and is comprised of

three routes as shown in Figure 19 with black diamonds indicating bus stops. The Blue Line will

begin at the Joshua Tree Visitor Center, which is the busiest visitor center of the park. Buses will

traverse Park Blvd. and stop at popular destinations in the following order: Joshua Tree Visitor

Center, Barker Dam, and Hidden Valley.

Table 6 summarizes the route travel times and distances for Alternative 1. The proposed

Blue Line is 15.6 miles long and has a one-way travel time of 27. A transfer stop will be placed

at Hidden Valley to allow visitors the option of transferring onto the Purple Line (heading south

on Keys View Rd) or Yellow Line (heading southeast on Park Blvd). The Purple line will take

visitors directly to Keys View and has a length of 7.2 miles and a one-way travel time of 16

minutes. The Yellow Line will shuttle visitors to Ryan Mountain, Skull Rock, Jumbo Rock, Arch

Rock, and lastly, the Cholla Cactus Garden via Pinto Basin Rd. The proposed Yellow Line has a

length of 22 miles and a one-way travel time of 36 minutes. Once each bus has reached its last

stop on its respective route, the bus will turn around and repeat the route in reverse.

45 | P a g e

Figure 19: Route Alternative 1 Map

Table 6: Alternative 1 Route Distances and Travel Times

Shuttle Line Distance (mi) Time (mins)

Blue 15.6 27

Purple 7.2 16

Yellow 22 36

A total of 12 bus stops will be installed for Route 1, with one bus stop at most locations,

with the exception of the Transfer Stop at Hidden Valley, Ryan Mountain, and Jumbo Rock,

which will each have two bus stops (one stop for each direction). For the sites containing two bus

stops, pedestrian crosswalks will be installed, forcing vehicles to yield to all pedestrians crossing

the roadway. Additionally, two light poles will be installed to accommodate each bus stop along

with one parallel bus bay. Each site will have an emergency call box for visitors to use in time of

need. As previously discussed, additional parking at the Joshua Tree Visitor Center is proposed

to be built to accommodate for visitor parking for shuttle use. Lastly, restrooms are located at

every bus stop with the exception of Cholla Cactus, which will need installation of a waterless

restroom. A breakdown of the individual costs and infrastructure quantities associated with

Alternative 1 are shown in Table 22 of Appendix Section C.3.

46 | P a g e

5.2.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1; however the north entrance is incorporated in the

shuttle system while the Cholla Cactus Garden stop has been removed. Figure 20 depicts the

Alternative 2 bus stops (black diamonds) and routes. A transfer stop placed at Hidden Valley

will allow visitors to move to the Purple or Yellow Line. With the exception of the Cholla Cactus

Garden, the route will include the same major stops of the Blue, Purple, and Yellow routes

included in Alternative 1. The Yellow Line in Alternative 2 will run from Hidden Valley along

Park Blvd to the Oasis Visitor Center along Utah Trail Rd. As shown in Table 7 the proposed

Yellow Line is 20.2 miles in length with a one-way travel time of 32 minutes.




Blue 15.6 27

Purple 7.2 16

Yellow 20.2 32

47 | P a g e

A total of 10 bus stops will be installed for Alternative 2, with one bus stop at most

locations, with the exception of the Transfer Stop at Hidden Valley, Ryan Mountain, and Jumbo

Rock, which will each have two bus stops (one stop for each direction). Similar infrastructure

from Route Alternative 1 will be installed for all bus stops. No additional parking spaces were

proposed for this alternative. However, the Joshua Tree Visitor Center parking lot needs

repaving; therefore, in the associated cost it was assumed that there currently does not exist

anything in that lot and complete construction is needed. A breakdown of the individual costs

and infrastructure quantities associated with Alternative 2 are shown in Table 23 Section C.3 in

the Appendix.

5.2.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 shown in Figure 21 is the most extensive of the alternatives, as the route

runs across the entire park. The Blue Line includes stops at popular sites in the following order:

Joshua Tree Visitor Center, Barker Dam, Keys Ranch, Hidden Valley, and Keys View. A

transfer stop will be placed at Hidden Valley to allow visitors to continue on the Blue Line

headed toward Keys View or transfer onto the Purple Line headed toward the Cholla Cactus

Garden. Table 8 summarizes the travel times and distances of each route. The Blue Line has a

length of 24.5 miles and a one-way travel time of 48 minutes. The Purple Line will include stops

at Ryan Mountain, Skull Rock, Jumbo Rock, and the Cholla Cactus Garden. During the spring

season, the Purple Line will extend to the Cottonwood Visitor Center, illustrated as the dotted

seasonal route in Figure 13. The main Purple Line has a length of 22 miles and a one-way travel

time of 32 minutes. The seasonal Purple Line running between Cholla Cactus Garden and the

Cottonwood Visitor Center has a length of 41.7 miles and a travel time of 1 hour and 10 minutes.

48 | P a g e




Blue 24.5 48

Purple (Main) 22 32

Dotted Purple (Seasonal) 41.7 70

A total of 14 bus stops will be installed for Route 3, with one bus stop at most locations,

with the exception of the Transfer Stop at Hidden Valley, Ryan Mountain, Jumbo Rock, Arch

Rock, and Cholla Cactus which will each have two bus stops (one stop for each direction).

Similar infrastructure from Route Alternatives 1 and 2 will be installed for all bus stops.

Similarly to Route 1, additional parking space at the Joshua Tree Visitor Center is proposed to be

built to accommodate for shuttle riders. A breakdown of the individual costs and infrastructure

quantities associated with Alternative 3 are shown in Table 24 of Section C.3 in the Appendix.

5.3 Shuttle Operation The shuttle system will operate during the hours of the Joshua Tree Visitor Center (8 AM

- 5 PM), however the number of shuttles in operation will vary depending on the day of the

week, holidays, weather conditions, and seasons. According to the rangers of Joshua Tree

National Park, there is traffic congestion from 9 AM – 12 PM when visitors enter the park and 2-

49 | P a g e

3 PM when visitors leave the park. The shuttle system can be expected to be in full operation

during peak weekends and holidays.

For the third alternative, a seasonal route, illustrated as an extension of the solid Purple

Line, will run between the Cholla Cactus Garden and the Cottonwood Visitor Center. Due to the

vast amount of preservation land that encompasses Joshua Tree National Park, it would be

difficult to maintain the cost and operation between the 20-mile-stretch year-round. In addition,

many visitors make the additional drive to the southern half of the park to primarily see the

wildflowers in the lower elevations of the Pinto Basin in the southern section of the park.

Wildflowers typically begin blooming in February and continue to bloom until as late as June.

By placing a seasonal shuttle route according to the wildflower season, the shuttle system will

reduce traffic congestion and provide visitors an accessible and sustainable alternative to get

from one side of the park to the other.

5.4 Transit System Characteristics

Origin Destination Demand Estimation

The purpose of origin destination (OD) demand, in particular, private vehicle origin

destination demand, is to determine the current travel patterns within Joshua Tree National Park.

The OD study will also provide necessary information on the popular attraction sites. In order to

obtain the OD data, the parking survey data that UCI ITE members collected during the Joshua

Tree Trip on February 15th

to the 16th

was used. The original data only contains trip data, shown

for Feb. 16th

in Table 9 (a). The origin location is on the left of the table and the destination is

shown on the top of the table. For example, there were five vehicles that were observed at Cholla

Cactus Garden that were also observed at Hidden Valley. In order to convert these vehicle trip

counts to person counts, an average of 2.7 persons per vehicle was used based on the methods

reported by the NPS Visitor Statistics1. Table 9 (b) shows the resulting number of persons

traveling between sites for Feb. 16th. Lastly, two days of data were collected during the parking

study, thus, an average of the observed counts over the two days was taken. The average number

of visitors traveling between sites is shown in Table 9 (c).

1 https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park

50 | P a g e

Table 9: OD Trip Tables

# Vehicles Cholla HV BD JR KV

Cholla - 5 5 1 5

Hidden Valley 6 - 36 7 26

Barker Dam 2 16 - 10 17

Jumbo Rocks 3 4 4 - 3

Keys View 5 6 6 5 - (a) OD Vehicle Trip Table on Feb. 16th

# People Cholla HV BD JR KV

Cholla - 14 14 3 14


Barker Dam 5 43 - 27 46


Keys View 14 16 16 14 - (b) OD Person Trip Tables on Feb. 16th

# People Cholla HV BD JR KV

Cholla - 10 9 4 13


Barker Dam 10 41 - 18 39


Keys View 16 19 14 11 -

(c) Average OD Person Trip Tables

The OD visitor flows in Table 9 (c) which total to 402 visitors were then used as factors

to predict the demand for each transit route. Table 10 shows the proportions of trips allotted to

each OD pair.

Table 10: OD Trip Proportions

Trip Proportions Cholla HV BD JR KV

Cholla - 2.5% 2.2% 1.0% 3.2%

Hidden Valley 3.2% - 19.9% 4.0% 11.9%

Barker Dam 2.5% 10.2% - 4.5% 9.7%

Jumbo Rocks 2.0% 2.7% 3.5% - 2.0%

Keys View 4.0% 4.7% 3.5% 2.7% -

The next step is to determine the transit riders for each route. There are estimated to be

368 riders per hour during the peak hour, as explained in the previous section. The OD tables are

51 | P a g e

used to proportion this demand. This is done by multiplying the hourly volume of transit riders

by the OD trip proportions. Note, the values show in the table have been rounded up.

Table 11: Transit Riders in the Peak Hour

# Riders Cholla HV BD JR KV

Cholla - 9 8 4 12


Barker Dam 9 38 - 16 36


Keys View 15 17 13 10 -

Finally, the Parking Study did not measure visitor travel patterns to or from the three

entrances, so an alternate estimation method was developed to link trips from each of the

entrances to the five intra-park sites. First, the 2010 Visitor Demand Survey responses to

Question 8a regarding entrance used to enter the park were used. The west entrance in Joshua

Tree is the most popular entrance with 53% of the visitor groups passing through this entrance

while Cottonwood Visitor Center attracts only 17% of visitors. Note the responses do not total to

100% because respondents were allowed to select ‘other’. The number of transit riders at each

entrance is found by multiplying the percent visitation by the total number of hourly riders. Table

12 shows the percent visitation by entrance location and corresponding number of riders.

Table 12: Visitation by Entrance Station

Trip Proportions % Visitation

Riders

Joshua Tree Visitor Center

53% 195

Oasis Visitor Center 23% 85

Cottonwood Visitor Center

17% 63

The next step is to determine which sites are the first to be visited from each entrance

location. Again, the 2010 Visitor Demand Survey Question 8b was used. Question 8b asks about

the order in which the visitor group visited the sites within the Park. The first visit is assumed to

be the visitor center. The second visit is assumed to be the closest site to the entrance station or a

52 | P a g e

proportional split between the two closest sites in the case of Joshua Tree Visitor Center. Table

13 details the destinations most commonly visited after a visitor center.

Table 13: Sites visited from Visitor Centers

Trip Proportions Site 1 Site 2


Barker Dam (34%)

Hidden Valley (66%)

Oasis Visitor Center Jumbo Rocks


Cholla Cactus

The final transit OD matrix is created by combining the results of Table 12 and Table 13

and appending these to the intra-park OD matrix shown in Table 11. It is assumed that there is

zero visitor to visitor center travel demand for transit because visitors will need to return to their

vehicles at the same visitor center where the accessed the transit system. It is also assumed that

return trips from sites to the visitor centers are symmetrical to the trips from the visitor center to

the site. Table 14 shows the final transit rider OD matrix. The largest flows occur between

Joshua Tree Visitor Center and Hidden Valley. The second highest flows occur between the

Oasis Visitor Center and Jumbo Rocks.

Table 14: Transit OD Matrix

Transit Riders Cholla Hidden Valley

Barker Dam

Jumbo Rocks

Keys View

Joshua Tree VC

Oasis VC

Cottonwood VC

Cholla - 9 8 4 12 0 0 63

Hidden Valley 12 - 73 15 44 129 0 0

Barker Dam 9 38 - 16 36 66 0 0

Jumbo Rocks 7 10 13 - 7 0 85 0

Keys View 15 17 13 10 - 0 0 0

Joshua Tree VC 0 129 66 0 0 - 0 0

Oasis VC 0 0 0 85 0 0 - 0

Cottonwood VC 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Assignment of Transit Trips to each Route Alternative

Using the final peak transit OD matrix, trips for each alternative were assigned based on

the OD travel demands. Using the trips assigned to each route, the maximum load point was

determined based on the maximum between the sum of inbound travel and the sum of outbound

53 | P a g e

travel. The maximum load point is the maximum number of passengers on board the transit

vehicle. In other words, this is the maximum level of demand which should be planned for.

Figure 22 shows the travel demand between each site. Inbound travel is represented as the same

direction of the arrowhead. Each color represents the shuttle system line of the alternative. The

thickness of the lines is used to delineate travel from one location to another.

Figure 22: Route Alternative 1 Travel Patterns based on the OD Travel Matrix

The names of the locations are shown in each of the circle and are abbreviated. From the

top left moving right, the full names are: Joshua Tree Visitor Center, Hidden Valley, and Barker

Dam. The next row down is Keys View. And the last row is Jumbo Rocks and Cholla Cactus

Garden. The travel demand for alternatives two and three are shown in the Appendix.

Headways and Number of Buses

Before headway and number of buses can be determined the maximum load point must

be found. Headway is defined to be the time interval between successive arrivals of transit

vehicles at a fixed location, it is also known as the frequency of the transit service. Secondly,

service frequency (headway) that will adequately service the maximum load point must be

determined. Once headway is determined, the number of transit vehicles and type of transit

vehicle can be selected based on financial availability.

54 | P a g e

A standard bus, according to the Transportation Planning Process for Transit in Federal

Land Management Areas Volume 3, has a seating capacity of 48 persons. Headways were

iteratively determined in order to meet all transit demands while satisfying the seating capacity

demand. The number of buses was determined by the total travel time multiplied by 2 for a

roundtrip and adding to it the number of bus stops multiplied by a stop time of 1.5 minutes. This

number was then divided by the headway to determine the number of buses needed. Overall, the

number of buses for routes 1, 2, and 3 is as follows: 11, 12, and 20 buses. Note that these are the

minimum number of buses that are needed in order to maintain the headways. These headways

include the load times at each bus stop.

5.5 Parking Lots

Required parking lot sizes were calculated based on an estimated ridership of 18.5%.

This means that 18.5% of a certain visitor population will be willing to ride the shuttle. Using

this 18.5% ridership, three different estimation methods/ assumptions were made to develop an

average number of parking spaces required. The first method did not rely on the ridership, but

simply focused on preventing overflow based on the counts that were obtained from the parking

survey during the peak hour. The second method assumed that only the visitors traveling to the

five parking study sites would be willing to use the shuttle system. The third, assumed that all of

the vehicles entering during a particular busy day could be potential shuttle riders. These

methods are further elaborated below.

Methods for Parking Lot Size Determination

Method 1: Only the visitors traveling to the five parking study sites would be willing to use the

shuttle system; therefore, the amount of visitors at the remaining locations were ignored. Parking

survey data was used to obtain the maximum number of vehicles during the observed peak hour

(462 vehicles). This was then subtracted from the maximum number of parking spaces available

at these locations (approximately 379). From this calculation, it was determined that a minimum

of 83 parking spots would be required outside of the park in order to prevent overflow.

Method 2: Only the visitors traveling to the five parking study sites would be willing to use the

shuttle system; therefore, the amount of visitors at the remaining locations were ignored. The

55 | P a g e

number of vehicles present at the park is the sum of the number of vehicles found during the

peak hour of the parking study. A total of 462 vehicles were counted during the busiest hour;

therefore, by taking 18.5% ridership of the 462, it is determined a total of 86 parking spaces are

needed.

Method 3: All parking lots inside park grounds are full and visitors not traveling to the five

study areas are willing to ride the shuttle regardless of the fact that it only stops at five locations.

An estimated 787 parking lots were found within park grounds. If 18.5% of this population

would be willing to use the shuttle system, the number of parking spaces required outside of park

grounds was estimated to be 146.

Taking the average of these three parking size requirements, gives an estimate of 105

parking spaces required in order for the shuttle system to function properly. The following

section briefly presents the proposed routes, which are tied with proposed parking lot locations.

Parking Lot Locations and Capacities

Based on the three proposed shuttle routes, two different potential parking lot locations

have been selected. For alternative one and three, the shuttle will only be traveling to the Joshua

Tree Visitor Center; therefore, additional parking will only be provided at this location. This

center currently has an estimated 83 parking spaces (shown in Figure 23). However, as discussed

in the previous section, the estimated demand is 105 parking spaces; therefore, additional land

must be purchased to accommodate additional vehicles. Approximately 0.22 acres of land must

be purchased to add 22 parking spaces. A summary of the associated costs can be found in

Section B.3 of the Appendix.

56 | P a g e

Figure 23: Existing Joshua Tree Visitor Center Parking Lot

For Alternative 2, the shuttle travels to both the Joshua Tree Visitor Center and the Oasis

Visitor Center. Therefore, the total parking lot demand was split between these two locations.

Two-thirds of the parking demand was allocated to the Joshua Tree Visitor Center parking lot

and one-third was allocated to the Oasis Visitor Center. This was based on the fact that

approximately two-thirds of vehicles enter through the Joshua Tree Visitor Center compared to

the Oasis entrance; therefore, more demand is expected in this area. Following these ratios, it

was calculated that at least a total of 70 parking spaces are needed at the Joshua Tree Visitor

Center while a total of 35 are needed at the Oasis Visitor Center. Since the Joshua Tree Visitor

Center has room for approximately 83 parking spaces, no additional land must be purchased as

the capacity exceeds the demand. At the Oasis visitor center, 43 parking spaces currently exist

and a total of 35 parking spots are required. Again, no additional parking is needed at this visitor

center as the capacity exceeds the calculated demand.

57 | P a g e

Chapter 6: Traffic Impact Analysis

With the growing number of visitors that Joshua Tree NP has been experiencing in recent

years, it is expected that vehicular activity both within and outside of the bounds of the park

would increase. This means more congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic related

accidents. It is anticipated that all proposed route alternatives would be effective in mitigating

negative impacts associated with visitor growth. For one, it would lower the number of vehicles

within the park as riding the shuttle would be a safer and more convenient option. However, it is

important to note that there will be two types of shuttle riders. One will be those who park their

vehicles within the park to take the shuttle, and the other will be those who park outside and take

the shuttle to enter the park. The following study will focus primarily on the second type, as most

visitors in the future are assumed to park outside of the park to take the shuttle to travel into the

park.

6.1 Analysis of Existing Intersections The intersection near the Joshua Tree Visitor Center (West Entrance) is approximately 16

miles from the intersection leading to the Oasis Visitor Center (North Entrance). It is surrounded

by homes, small businesses, and several vacant lots that are currently used for parking. Directly

to the south of the Oasis visitor center is Service Road, where only employees of the park are

permitted to enter. To the north, there are homes and a church. To the west is a preserved oasis

known as the Oasis of Mara. To the east is a residential neighborhood. Although there are many

open areas surrounding the visitor center, unlike the Joshua Tree Visitor Center, possible parking

locations are limited. The visitor center currently offers parking but with a limited capacity of 83

vehicles.

6.2 Projected Traffic

It was assumed that creating alternative parking spaces outside of the park could help

reduce traffic inside the park; therefore, this memo primarily focuses on the external impacts.

This analysis utilized predicted average daily traffic (ADT) estimates acquired from the San

Bernardino County department of transportation, which has public ADT volumes for specific

intersections. These volumes were utilized to understand the direction in which most cars are

traveling. Although the data provided by the San Bernardino Department of Transportation was

58 | P a g e

limited and varied with season, we were able to attain the following ADTs near Joshua Tree

Visitor Center and Oasis Visitor Center:

● ADT along Park Blvd. south of SR-62: 4,740 vehs/day (4/20/2011) (Fig. 13)

● ADT along Park Blvd. north of SR-62: 1,596 vehs/day (8/30/2007) (Fig. 13)

● ADT along Utah Trail south of Starlight Dr. : 553 vehs/day (6/03/2010) (Fig. 14)

These are pictured below in Figure 24 and Figure 25. The highlighted areas represent the

direction in which vehicles are traveling.

Figure 24 : ADTs data collected locations near Joshua Tree Visitor Center

These volumes vary by year for each intersection; therefore, an estimate of 2013 traffic

volumes was calculated based on the percent change of vehicles entering through each of the

sites. The number of vehicles entering through each of the entrances for every month was

obtained from the National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics.

The monthly vehicle counts at the North and West entrances are shown below in Table

16 and Table 17. West entrances experienced a higher flow during August. Volume at North

entrance is relatively low. This is also summarized in Figure 26.

59 | P a g e

Figure 25: ADTs data collected near Oasis Visitor Center

Table 15: Traffic Counts at West Entrance (Joshua Tree)

Year April August

2013 21,759 10,194

2012 22,518 9,493

2011 23,072 8,312

2010 22,580 9,138

2009 20,890 8,467

2008 19,619 6,821

2007 16,651 9,852

60 | P a g e

Table 16: Traffic Counts at North Entrance (Twentynine Palms Oasis)

Year June

2013 5,750

2012 4,708

2011 5,475

2010 5,217

2009 4,713

2008 4,044

2007 7,918

Figure 26: Monthly vehicle counts

61 | P a g e

Traffic volume processing highlighted that south of SR-62 at Park Blvd. serves an

estimated 4,470 veh /day, while north of SR-62 at Park Blvd. serves 1,652 vehs/day. At the

intersection of Utah Trail and Starlight Drive an estimated 6,337 vehs/day travel into the park.

6.2.2. Results Based on the estimated ADT for Year 2013 and the traffic volume trends at each of the

entrances, it was projected that the intersection of SR-62 and Park Blvd. will continue

experiencing the highest volumes of the intersections studied. The North entrance is projected to

remain the second most congested entrance. This is due to the fact that most of the popular sites

in Joshua Tree National Park are located on the West side of the park; therefore, this will cause

visitors to access the park from the entrance closest to the site they would like to visit. Traffic

conditions at the intersection of SR-62 and Park Blvd. might pose a small problem if the first

alternative is carried out as all visitors riding the shuttle will be forced to park in the parking lots

located near the start of the shuttle route. The South entrance was disregarded because the traffic

volumes are very low and do not have a significantly increasing trend. In addition, on rare

occasions, this entrance may be closed during the winter season due to dangerous road

conditions caused by severe weather.

Adding shuttles to the existing network may cause problems to some congested local

streets, for example south Park Blvd. In order to resolve the potential traffic concerns caused by

the shuttle system implementation, the main goal would be to spread parking locations along SR-

62. For Alternative 1 and 3, congestion can be reduced along Park Blvd. by extending the storage

length for the right turn lane in order to prevent queuing behind the existing through lane.

Another option is to increase the number of parking spaces at the North entrance in order to

encourage visitors to travel in that direction when parking is full at the West entrance. With the

future Caltrans projects along SR-62, some safety concerns will be mitigated, but this might pose

congestion issues during the years the project is under construction.

62 | P a g e

Chapter 7: Sustainability Beyond alleviating parking and entrance station congestion, another goal of the transit

system is to reduce environmental impacts resulting from vehicle emissions. As a sensitive

geographical area, the air quality in Joshua Tree National Park has to meet the highest standards

set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), thus alternative fuel technology for transit

vehicles is very important to the nature of the park. Various transit technologies, air pollutants,

and emissions models are presented in this section. Six alternative transit technologies were

compared. These included: diesel, bio-diesel, hybrid diesel-electric, electric, propane, and

hydrogen. All six technologies operate uniquely, require specialized infrastructure for fueling

and maintenance, and have various impacts on the air quality.

In this Chapter, a brief review of existing transit services is provided, followed by a

description of each of the six specified transit technologies. Finally, a summary of pollutant

emissions is given and a final recommendation regarding transit technology is provided.

7.1 Existing Transit Services

Pre-existing conditions of Joshua Tree National Park are very minimal in terms of

transit. Joshua Tree NP does not currently have an internal transit system. Local transit

authorities are the Morongo Basin Transit Authority (MBTA) and SunLine Transit

Agency. MBTA has routes going through the community of Joshua Tree, as well as other local

communities such as Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley, Morongo Valley, and Landers. The

MBTA operates 24 busses operating on compressed natural gas (CNG) with fueling stations in

Joshua Tree and Twentynine Palms. MBTA does not have routes that go into the National Park,

but has stops near by the entrances. The SunLine Transit Agency operates solely from the

Desert Hot Springs area down south to the Coachella area. SunLine buses include CNG,

hydrogen, and hybrid technologies.

7.2 Transit Technologies

Diesel

Diesel engines are becoming more popular in passenger cars. Modern diesel systems are

clean, powerful, and fuel-efficient. Diesel engines, like gasoline engines, are both internal

63 | P a g e

combustion engines. A diesel engine, however, compresses the air used in the combustion first

and then injects the fuel. As the air is compressed, the temperature increases causing the fuel to

ignite (Austin). They operate at a high compression ratio and the fuel has a higher energy density

which allows the fuel economy to be 15% to 30% higher than gasoline engines (Tuttle). In the

United States, diesel has increased in cost and currently costs more than gasoline, ranging from

$1500 to $5000 more to operate. This would increase operation costs if this alternative is chosen.

Current technology of diesel engines produces 90% less emissions than the old diesel

technology. Researchers have determined that new diesel engines produce emissions much lower

than the EPA standards and are emitting the same as gasoline powered automobiles. Fine

particulate matter has also decreased significantly with 99% lower particulate emissions coming

from the 2007 diesel engines than the 2004 models. Other air pollutants have also been decreased

significantly including carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Nitrogen oxides, however, have not

been lowered enough with the new technology. Only 70% of nitrogen oxides were lowered

between the 2007 and 2004 models, but larger reductions are necessary to follow the EPA set

standards of nitrogen oxides emissions. Researchers are trying to reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions without lowering the fuel economy, which has proven to be difficult (Cone). Diesel

fuel emits about 10.21 kg of carbon dioxide per gallon. For a medium to heavy duty vehicle

such as a bus, the methane emissions factor is about 0.0051 grams/mile and the nitrous oxide

emissions factor is about 0.0048 grams/mile.

Diesel buses cost approximately between $250,000 and $280,000 per bus (Colorado

DOT). As of April 7, 2014, the average cost of diesel in the United States was $3.959 per gallon

(Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update). There are currently a few gas stations located near Joshua

Tree that already sell diesel so new diesel pumping infrastructure would not have to be built.

Diesel-Electric Hybrid

Large vehicles such as buses are capable of using diesel hybrid engines. Diesel-electric

power can be used to improve fuel efficiency. While nearly all studies have shown an increase in

fuel economy and decreases in brake wear, engine wear, emissions, and noise pollution; these

studies have been focused on urban transport that travel with stop-and-go routes in mind. Since

64 | P a g e

the Joshua Tree Project will be planned with stop sites separated by several miles, these benefits

will not carry the same levels of benefits as they would in the city.

Engine systems have been innovated to make large diesel vehicles more sustainable.

Studies and tests by BAE Systems have shown that new engine systems, such as the parallel

system they developed, can reduce fuel consumption by up to 30% even for heavy vehicles like

freight trucks. However, it was shown that the parallel system worked best for slow going

vehicles with stop-and-go travels, such as garbage trucks. HybriDrive Propulsion systems use

diesel to run when operating at speeds over five mph. When the bus speed drops below five mph,

the engine shuts off to reduce idling time and fuel use. Heat, noise, and emissions at drop-off

points are eliminated. The electric powers the bus until it reaches five mph again, which activates

the diesel engine once more.

Fortunately, not all hybrid systems have been designed for only city use. Yosemite

National Park has invested in hybrid shuttle buses to benefit both the visitors to the park and the

park itself. Yosemite’s diesel-electric hybrid shuttle buses provide a quieter, cleaner, and more

fuel efficient mean of transportation throughout the park. The eighteen shuttles can serve over

one thousand passengers per hour for fifteen hours a day, year round. Estimates conducted by the

NPS calculate the particulate matter emissions have decreased by 90%. The car traffic in the park

has also been severely reduced, thanks in part to the Yosemite shuttles offering free rides to the

visitors of the parks. “The buses are operated by Delaware North Companies, which subcontracts

its services to the National Park Service.” Diesel-Electric buses produce the same types of

emissions as traditional diesel buses, but at a reduced level, due to the switch from diesel to

electric during slow moving times and idling. Emissions factors for hybrid buses are about 1.40

grams/mile for carbon dioxide, 0.02 grams/mile for particulate matter, 0.02-1.2 grams/mile for

total hydrocarbons (dependent on fuel used), 0.30 grams/mile for carbon monoxide, and 1.01

grams/mile for nitrogen oxides (data based on studies performed by Connecticut Academy of

Science and Engineering, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and Federal Transit

Administration).

Hybrid Buses can cost twice as much as conventional diesel buses. The average price of a

40ft hybrid bus typically ranges from $450K to $550K, while conventional diesel runs around

$280K to $300K. However, studies have shown that hybrids generally save money in terms of

65 | P a g e

maintenance and operational costs. While government grants may be available to help alleviate

initial costs, but ultimately hybrid buses will come with a sweep initial investment.

In conclusion, Diesel Hybrid systems have been shown to be effective for city buses,

large diesel trucks, and most importantly park shuttles. Unfortunately, costs for hybrids tend to

be much higher for such systems as opposed to pure diesel engines. While Yosemite National

Park as shown successful implementation of hybrid shuttle use, climate and visitor frequency are

aspects that need to be kept in mind before making a decision.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel is a renewable fuel manufactured from biological ingredients, such as vegetable

oil, animal fats, or recycled restaurant grease. Biodiesel can be used in its pure form or in a

variety of blends with petroleum diesel fuel. These blends vary from 100% biodiesel (B100),

20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel (B20), 5% biodiesel and 95% petroleum diesel (B5),

and 2% biodiesel and 98% petroleum diesel (B2). Petroleum diesel and biodiesel are very similar

chemically. Both fuels have a long chain of carbon atoms, with hydrogen atoms attached. The

difference between the fuels is that biodiesel also has an ester group at the end of the chain of the

carbon atoms. This is due to biodiesel being made out of vegetable oil. Vegetable oil must be

converted to biodiesel in order for the fuel to reduce the molecular size. Shrinking the molecule

decreases the temperature at which the fuel will start to gel. After removing any traces of water

in the vegetable oil, the oil is converted into biodiesel via a transesterification reaction. Methanol

is used to break down vegetable oil into biodiesel and glycerol.

Unlike petroleum diesel, biodiesel is easily replenished by farming and recycling.

Biodiesel also substantially reduces tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrated

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfates, unburned

hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM). Biodiesel reduces the dependency of fossil

fuels from foreign countries. Greenhouse gas emission is significantly reduced due to Using

biodiesel reduces greenhouse gas emissions because the plant feedstock used in the production

absorbs released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when it grows, due to photosynthesis.

Production particulate emissions for biodiesel are 50% less than emissions for petroleum diesel.

While tailpipe emissions are reduced by 20% with biodiesel conversion. Biodiesel is also

66 | P a g e

biodegradable and non-toxic. Biodiesel fuel buses emits 2% more NOx than diesel but reduces

PM emissions by 10.1%,HC emissions by 21.2%, and CO emissions by 11%. CO2 emissions are

eliminated all together. Biodiesel allows for easy transition from diesel fuel to biodiesel fuel

because there are no modifications required to begin fueling with biodiesel. Biodiesel is cost

efficient and feasible but does not offer a great reduction of emissions compared to other fuel

alternatives.

Biodiesel blends can be used in diesel vehicles without any engine modification.

Therefore, the cost of a biodiesel bus is the same as a diesel bus. A transit bus averages between

$250,000 and $350,000, depending on specifications. Fleets generally use B20 or B5 biodiesel

blends. Blends with percentage of biodiesel higher than 20% may require engine modification,

due to the biodiesel’s capability of deteriorating rubber gaskets and tubing. Biodiesel has a

higher flashpoint than conventional diesel so it is less flammable. Therefore, biodiesel is

compatible with existing fuel storage tanks. Biodiesel also improves engine lubrication and

actually cleans the engine gunk and deposits from the inside of the fuel system. The U.S.

Department of Energy did a study where it compared nine identical 40-ft transit buses for two

years. Five of the buses ran on B20 biodiesel fuel and the other four operated on petroleum

diesel. The study titled, 100,000-Mile Evaluation of Transit Buses Operated on Biodiesel Blends

(B20), concluded there is no difference between average fuel economy for diesel and biodiesel

vehicles. Maintenance costs were higher for the B20 group by $0.02 per mile due to component

replacements. Transitioning to biodiesel caused early problems and fuel filtering plugging.

Biodiesel fuel (B20) averaged around $4.06/gal in July 2013. Its cost fluctuates directly

with the cost of diesel fuel. The closest location of a public biodiesel fuel pump is Extreme

Green Technologies Incorporated in Corona, California. The station is 95 miles away from

Joshua Tree NP. A plan for storing biodiesel closer to the Park should be considered.

Propane

Zion National Park, located in southern Utah, created a transit system within the park

using propane powered shuttles (Green Transit - The Zion Shuttle). Propane shuttles are

increasing in usage for fleet applications. A propane vehicle operates similarly to gasoline

powered engines, with similar power, acceleration, cruising speeds, and driving range. Propane

67 | P a g e

engines, however, have lower maintenance costs than a normal gasoline powered engine. They

have a higher octane rating, and low carbon and oil contamination characteristics which result in

a higher lifetime expectancy than gasoline engines.

Propane costs less than gasoline, which helps saved costs of operation. Propane engines

produce lower amounts of harmful emissions compared to diesel and gasoline engines. An EPA

emissions test of a propane-fueled Ford V8 resulted in a net hydrocarbon emission of 73%

cleaner than the acceptable standard, NoX emissions were down 57%, and CO emissions were

93% cleaner than the federal standard. Propane engines provide 90% of gasoline’s miles per

gallon and propane is considered a safe motor fuel because propane tanks are 20 times as

puncture-resistant as gasoline tanks and the lower flammability range (Propane Powers Zion

National Park’s Shuttle Bus Service). Propane buses emit about 5.72 kg carbon dioxide/gallon,

0.27 grams methane/gallon, and 0.05 grams nitrous oxides/gallon. According to the Zion

National Park Study, emissions factors for propane shuttles given by the manufacturer are 3.44

grams volatile organic compound/ mile, 0.3 grams carbon monoxide/mile, and 9.85 grams

nitrogen oxides/mile.

Propane vehicles are spark-ignited engines like gasoline powered engines. For a vapor

injected system, liquid propane enters the engine compartment through a fuel line. A regulator or

vaporizer converts the liquid propane into a vapor. The vapor is then mixed with filtered air and

moved to the combustion chamber where it burns to produce the power to drive the vehicle.

Because of the mixture of vapor and air, cold start problems are greatly reduced in propane

engines (Propane Vehicles).

Amerigas, located in 29 Palms, currently sells propane which could fuel the shuttles for

Joshua Tree. Propane engines, modeled after the propane shuttle fleet in place in Zion National

Park, could be a good alternative for the Joshua Tree transit system due to the low maintenance

and operational costs, lower harmful emissions, and safety.

Electric

An electric bus is a bus powered by electricity. Electric buses are on the rise in the United

States. However, the biggest problem is that batteries don't allow these buses to travel a

satisfactory range. They are mainly concentrated in the airport and other short shuttle route. For

68 | P a g e

example, Foothill Transit has several electric buses on Route 291 and it has shown that these

buses have short recharging periods.

Since the battery technology is still not very developed, it is very unlikely for the transit

industry to use this technology. This technology needs to be developed to a point where a vehicle

can easily travel around 200-300 miles on a single charge. The delays caused for the need for en-

route charging will make it too costly for a transit agency. Furthermore, the capital cost for an

electric bus is estimated to be around $700,000 in fuel and maintenance over a 12 year period.

On top of that, the cost of necessary charging stations can be up to $50,000 each. The estimated

cost to charge the buses each time would be about 20 to 30 cents per mile traveled.

Electric Buses emit no gases since it has no tailpipe emissions and use less energy per

miles than diesel buses. This technology is still not mature, but electric buses are a clear example

involving technology in air control and alternative fuel vehicles. Since electricity is produced

from renewable energy sources, such as wind or hydro-electric power, greenhouse gas emissions

for electric buses should be minimal or close to zero.

With the recent discovery of massive amounts of natural gas in the United States,

agencies have decided not to adopt electric buses. As a result, the price of natural gas has gone

down. Natural gas will prove to be a cheaper source for buses than electricity. However, electric

buses have the greatest appeal in California since pollution is preventing the purchase of diesel

buses.

Yosemite National Park has invested in two electric-powered shuttle buses. These buses

provide millions of Yosemite visitors an eco-friendly type of transportation. These electric buses

have "no odors, no noise, [and] no pollution." Electric buses are a clear example involving new

technology in air control and alternative fuel vehicles. With this idea in mind, electric buses can

be incorporated in Joshua Tree National Park as well.

Hydrogen

The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is a zero emission vehicle which has a high positive

impact to the environment. Although it is relatively expensive to produce, the invention of the

hydrogen fuel cell technology is another leap to the improvement to the technology for the

69 | P a g e

environment because it produces only water vapor through combustion. Major car manufacturers

such as Toyota and Hyundai have begun producing the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and they are

ready to run in California. There are not many hydrogen fuel stations in the US and they are

mainly available in major cities in the US. California has committed to invest $200 million USD

to produce around 100 hydrogen fuel station by 2024.

Hydrogen buses operate more efficiently than gasoline buses. Fuel Cell technology

utilizes up to 60% of the total power where as gasoline technology utilize up to 40% of the total

power. Fuel Cell technology generates electricity and heat using hydrogen. The advantage about

fuel cell technology is that the combustion releases zero pollutants which are good development

in technology.

Hydrogen fuel buses have been around in Burbank, California, and operated 250 miles

before recharging time which can rotate between the city’s 4 routes. The advantages of the

hydrogen fuel busses would be improved fuel economy, Greenhouse gas reduction, improved air

quality and enhanced rider experience. The disadvantage of the fuel cell bus would be the

availability of the fuel stations and the price of hydrogen fuel bus is 4 times of the price of diesel

bus. There are no recent hydrogen fuel stations that are being developed in the region. The

popularity for hydrogen fuel cell are low at the moment which makes it hard for hydrogen fuel

bus to be the right choice at the moment but it is a good alternative for the future because fuel

cell technology hold great potential for the better future.

70 | P a g e

Table 14: Transit Technology Summary Table

Transit

Technology Pros Cons Currently Used In

Diesel

Lower fuel consumption

rate

Affordable startup cost

Convenient stations

Very high emissions

Denali National Park, CA

Los Angeles, CA

Mount Rainier National

Park

Diesel-

Electric

Hybrid

Great city fuel rate

Prevents emissions

during idling

Reduced noise

Reduced exhaust odor

Higher fuel-economy

High purchase cost

Electric only operates

when traveling <5 mph

Studies on city travel

Long term battery life

never proven

Yosemite National Park,

CA

Sequoia National Park,

CA

Minneapolis & St. Paul,

MN

London, England

New York City, NY

Biodiesel

Renewable energy

produced domestically

Reduced tail pipe

emissions

Can be used in diesel

vehicle without

modifications

Can freeze at higher

temperatures

Fluctuating fuel costs

Must be administered

under special protocol to

avoid problems

Limited fuel stations

St. Louis Metro, MO

Oahu, HI

Olympia, WA

MATBUS North Dakota

Propane

Reduced emissions

Convenient station

Narrow flammability

range

Reduction in fuel cost

Similar operating range

to diesel

Newer technology

Special training for

mechanics

Additional fueling

infrastructure

Zion National Park, UT

Mesa Verde National

Park, CO

Acadia National Park,

ME

Electric

Reduce pollution

Quiet and quick

Reduce exhaust odor

Cheap to operate

Limited range

Long refueling time

High cost

Lack of consumer choice

Yosemite National Park,

CA

Sequoia Nation Park, CA

Kings Canyon National

Park, CA

South Korea

San Francisco, CA

Hydrogen

Zero emissions

Clean air

More efficient

Expensive

High maintenance cost

Limited fuel station area

Less popular

Burbank, CA

San Francisco, CA

Tokyo, Japan

Seoul, S. Korea

London, England

71 | P a g e

7.3 Air Pollutants Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide, CO, is a colorless odorless and very poisonous gas that is formed

from the incomplete burning of carbon. This is primarily found when carbon fuels, or fossil

fuels, are not fully processed in the engines of vehicles, construction equipment, and military

equipment. Carbon Monoxide poisoning can occur at very low concentrations. Carbon monoxide

poisoning is the most common fatal type of air poisoning in several countries. Common

symptoms include headaches, nausea, dizziness, and even death. Death can occur in 30 minutes

at a CO air concentration of 0.32% (Goldstein, 2008). For the sake of brevity, we will focus on

CO from vehicle emissions.

In the city, automobile exhaust accounts for 95% of CO emissions (U.S. EPA, 2003).

Thanks in part to increased standards and regulations, man-made CO emissions decreased by

46% between 1990 and 2005. However, 60% of carbon monoxide in America is caused by

automobile exhaust. Diesel engines are said to produce very little carbon monoxide in their

emissions due to the way diesel burns fuel with an excess of air. Regardless, carbon monoxide is

a very dangerous emission that is fatal to humans and animals alike.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) occurs naturally as a part of the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle is

the act by which carbon is exchanged among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals.

CO2 is produced by plants during respiration. Nevertheless, human-related CO2 emissions are

responsible for the exponential increase in the atmosphere. The primary source of human-related

CO2 emissions is from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, gasoline, and oil) combustion for energy and

transportation. Transportation contributes to 31% of total U.S CO2 emissions and 26% of total

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011.

The emission levels of CO2 present at Joshua Tree National Park were recorded in the

Visitor Vehicle Emissions Study in 2005. The emission levels, which were measured by

MOBILE6, were exponentially larger than all of the remaining studied pollutants combined.

72 | P a g e

From the study results, it is clear that CO2 is the most prominent pollutant emitted at Joshua

Tree.

Nitrous Oxides

Nitrogen Oxides are a group of highly reactive gases that most commonly include Nitric

Oxide (NO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) when referring to air pollution.

Nitrogen Oxides are produced from the emissions of cars, trucks, buses, power-plants, and off-

road equipment (Nitrogen Dioxide). Approximately 40% of all nitrogen oxide emissions come

from human interaction with the environment including agriculture, transportation, and industry

(Overview of Greenhouse Gases). Nitrogen Oxides cause problems with the respiratory system,

including irritation of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract (An Introduction to Indoor Air

Quality). Long exposure to the toxic gases can cause many respiratory infections and can lead to

chronic and acute bronchitis.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) first set standards to reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions in 1971 with 0.053 ppm, averaged annually. By 2010, the EPA had dropped their

standards significantly to 100 ppb, averaged over a one hour period (Nitrogen Dioxide).

However, nitrogen oxide emissions have not decreased enough to follow the standards.

Sulfur Oxide

Sulfur oxide, SOx, refers to all sulfur oxides with the two major ones being sulfur dioxide

(SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3). Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor

and taste. It is very soluble in water and can form weak acidic sulfuric acid. Sulfur trioxide is

slowly formed when sulfur dioxide combines with oxygen (O2) in the air. Sulfur trioxide quickly

combines with water to produce sulfuric acid. Sulfur oxides normally last in the atmosphere

between four to ten days.

Sulfur dioxide can damage a person’s respiratory system with symptoms such as broncho

constriction and increased asthma symptoms. EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard for

SO2 is made to protect against exposure to the entire sulfur oxides. Sox can easily react with

other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles that can penetrate deeply into

73 | P a g e

sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease. It can also worsen

existing heart disease, leading to increased deaths.

Volatile Organic Compounds

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) exist 2-5 times higher exposure indoor rather than

outdoors in average. The sources of VOCs indoors are paints, lacquers, paint supplies, building

materials and many more. Low exposure of VOCs can cause eye, nose or throat irritation,

headaches, loss of coordination and nausea. In high exposure, they can cause damage to liver,

kidney and central nervous system and maybe the cause of cancer. The steps to reduce VOC

exposure at home is by increasing ventilation when using products that contain VOCs and meet

or exceed any label precautions. One of the main compounds is formaldehyde which serves as

carcinogen. OHSA has restricted the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 0.75 ppm with action

level of 0.5 ppm. HUD has restricted the concentration of mobiles homes by a level of 0.4 ppm.

Furthermore, it is recommended to mitigate formaldehyde that is over 0.1 ppm.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matters, PM, are pollution particles made up of tiny particles of liquids and

solids, both organic and inorganic in nature. PM is divided into two classes: Course particles and

fine particles, depending on the size of the particulates.

Particulate matters ranging from 2.5 to 10 micrometers in diameter, PM 2.5-PM 10, are

classified as “course particles” (U.S. EPA, 2013). Course particles are generally caused by dust

being kicked up by vehicles or weather, or they can be caused by construction. These larger

particles are able to be inhaled through the air which can lead to health problems in the lungs

and/or heart.

Any particulate matter that is smaller than PM 2.5 is called a “fine particle” (U.S. EPA,

2013). Fine particles are so small that they only be seen with an electron microscope, however,

their small size make them far easier to reach deep sections of the lungs. In December of 2004,

the EPA added standards to regulate PM 2.5 emission, which are believed to be responsible for

acute health problems (FHWA, 2006).

74 | P a g e

Ozone

Ozone is present at ground level and in the upper regions of the atmosphere. Atmospheric

ozone protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, while ground level ozone is the main

component of smog. Ground level ozone is a pale blue gas with a distinctively pungent smell.

Ozone is not emitted but rather is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) react in sunlight. Ground level ozone is harmful to the public's health due to

ozone being a main component in the air the public breaths.

Ozone is not included in the Visitor Vehicle Emissions Study in 2005 due to none of the

proposed emission models measuring the presence of ozone. Nevertheless, ozone is designated

as one of the six common air pollutants. In future emission studies, ozone emissions must also be

included.

Smog

Smog is fog or haze combined with smoke and other atmospheric pollutants. In other

words, it is a type of air pollutant. Cars that combust fuel emit smog forming emissions such as

nitrogen oxide, non-methane organic gases, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and

formaldehyde. These emissions usually trap on the ground and form a brownish haze that

pollutes the air. Smog can be cause health problems such as breathing difficulties and lung

diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.

In general, vehicles are getting more efficient. Cars and trucks are 98-99% cleaner than

they were in the late 1960s for smog-related pollutants. These vehicles are getting cleaner every

year as there are more efficient, and clean options.

7.4 Comparison of Transit Technology Emission Rates In a Meta-Analysis of Transit Bus Exhaust Emissions

2 researchers compiled emissions

rates from a variety of transit technologies. Figure 27 summarizes and compares the pollutant

emission rates across the six transit technologies by pollutant. Electric and hydrogen produce

zero tailpipe emissions. Diesel and bio-diesel the highest carbon monoxide emission rates, while

2 Cooper, E., Arioli, M., Carrigan, A., and Jain, U.,“Meta-Analysis of Transit Bus Exhaust Emissions”,

Transportation Research Record, No. 2340, 2013.

75 | P a g e

propane and hybrid have the lowest. Propane also has the lowest CO2 emissions. NOx

emissions are highest for diesel and lowest for hybrid, with propane ranking in between. Diesel

has the highest PM emissions while hybrid has the lowest, with propane ranking in the middle.

Figure 28 compares the emissions rates per person between passenger cars and each of

the transit bus technologies under the assumption of 2.7 passengers per car and 50 passengers per

bus. Average passenger car emission rates were pulled from the EPA’s Average Annual

Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Truck report.

These charts compare compressed natural gas (CNG), diesel, hybrid, bio diesel, and propane

against a standard passenger car. On a per person basis, passenger cars produce higher CO and

CO2 emissions than all technologies. Propane technology achieves lower emissions across all

pollutants than passenger cars on a per person basis.

7.5 Summary Following the lead of Zion and Acadia NPs, propane transit technology is the

recommended technology given the conditions of Joshua Tree National Park considering the

possibility for reduced emissions and lower cost for the bus, fuel, and infrastructure

requirements.

76 | P a g e

Figure 27: Emissions Rates by transit technology and pollutant

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

02468

101214

Diesel Diesel-Electric

Hybird

Biodiesel Propane Electric Hydrogen

Transit Technology

gra

ms/m

ile

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Diesel Diesel-

Electric

Hybird


Transit Technology

gra

ms/m

ile

Nitorgen Oxide Emissions

05

101520253035


Hybird


Transit Technology

gra

ms/m

ile

Particulate Matter Emissions

0

0.5

11.5

2

2.5

3


Hybird


Transit Technology

gra

ms/m

ile

77 | P a g e

Figure 28: Per person emissions by transit technology and pollutant

78 | P a g e

Chapter 8: Funding & Finance The purpose of this Chapter is to evaluate benefits associated with each routing

alternative and present the most cost effective choice in conjunction with a sustainable shuttle

bus technology. In addition to the financial perspective of this transit feasibility study, different

modes of funding to help offset the cost of this project are considered.

8.1 Cost Analysis The three alternative bus routes were used to determine several details of projected costs.

The route alternatives vary by total mileage, number of buses, and service frequency resulting in

varying operating and capital costs. This was all taken into consideration when considering the

different costs of each route alternative. The major things that were considered for each

alternative were the total miles per route, the miles per gallon of fuel (if applicable), the number

of buses needed, and infrastructure costs. In this section a summary of the costs for the leasing

and purchasing options are provided. Details of all costs are provided in Appendix D for further

review.

The park is limited financially so this makes cost of implementing any transit system a

major consideration. The differing bus types all provide the park with several different benefits

including costs savings and environmental benefits. Electric buses are an example of this. The

electric buses were the only ones that provide the park with a zero local emissions transit option.

However, when looking solely at cost, both the hydrogen and electric options suffer because of

their higher costs compared to the cheapest option of bio-diesel bus. The reason that other

technology alternatives other than the cheapest were considered is because the park service has a

serious commitment to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The difficult choice to make is

whether or not spending the additional funds on a more sustainable method of transit is

something the park service can afford and is willing to consider. Overall, the costs are all fairly

similar and allow for some justification of the use of a more costly alternative if the price

increase is not incredibly high and the park benefits are noticeable.

79 | P a g e

Capital Costs Considerations

Joshua Tree National Park has the choice to either lease or purchase the shuttle buses.

These two different methods of paying for the buses were compared at a total cost over twelve

years. The purchasing option requires a large initial investment from the park, while the leasing

option allows for a smaller initial investment although it results in a general increase in cost for

all bus types. The lease term was considered to last for six years and resulted in a six year study

where maintenance and operational costs were the only costs accounted for during that period. A

six year leasing period was chosen because researched lease terms for similar facilities and plans

lasted for up to six years. The present value calculations were calculated by taking all of the costs

of the buses for the twelve years by year and adding them up with the use of a discount rate that

adjusts for future inflation. The three route alternatives were considered with this present value

calculation and each route was considered individually with differing bus technologies in order

to compare the results and determine which bus technology is best for the park and which route

choice is best simultaneously. For both the purchasing option and the leasing option, the cost of

building the infrastructure needed for the different bus types was the same so that variable would

not skew the results in favor of one option or another.

Purchasing Option

The purchasing option entails buying the buses required for the differing routes up front

and paying only maintenance and operation costs every year. Figure 29 shows the initial

purchase prices of the buses for each technology. The purchasing option, as expected, required

that the park put forth a larger sum of money to acquire the buses as an initial investment in the

project. This would mean that the park would be the sole owner of these buses and would be

responsible for all operations, maintenance, and other costs associated with running the proposed

services. This alternative, while seeming to be most off putting initially, ended up providing the

most beneficial results over a twelve-year period. The purchasing total costs are lower for all bus

types than those of the leasing options. The major drawback of the purchasing option is the

initial investment that the park would be required to make in order to finance the purchasing of

the buses needed for the route selected. The park is lacking in funds currently and funds that

would come in for this project would not be solely used for the purchasing of buses. The

80 | P a g e

purchasing costs of each bus for each routing and infrastructure alternative is shown in Figure

29.

Figure 29: Initial Bus Costs for Purchase Option

Figure 30: Present Value Costs of the Purchasing Option (in million dollars)

81 | P a g e

Leasing Option

The leasing option gives one major benefit over the purchasing option because it allows

the park to invest less money at the beginning of the considered twelve year time frame. The

major drawback to leasing the buses, no matter what technology was used for the buses, is that

the overall cost is higher than purchasing the buses. The three routes all have higher total present

worth values when leasing the buses for all bus technologies than their purchasing counterparts.

The leasing present value takes into consideration the six year lease period as well as all

infrastructure costs, maintenance costs and the buyout price of the buses at the six year mark.

The buyout price is the price of purchasing the buses after paying the lease for six years. The

buyout price is extremely low compared to the original price of the buses for all technologies due

to depreciation. The depreciation rate used was 12 percent for all buses in all route choices. This

was the standard found through research and makes the buses 72 percent cheaper to purchase

after leasing them for six years. The same buses would then remain in service at the park for the

following six years of the study. The buyout happens at year six but does not affect the costs

after that. The cost of leasing the buses after year six is therefore zero. This indicates that the

leasing option is, in fact, the more costly of the two funding alternatives and that the majority of

its costs are within the first six years. The leasing costs of each bus for each routing and

infrastructure alternative is shown in Figure 30.

82 | P a g e

Figure 31: Present Value Costs of the Leasing Option (in million dollars)

Recommendations

Ultimately, the choice to initially purchase or lease the shuttle buses will be made by the

park based off of several factors including costs. The cost of the different bus technologies will

play a major role in the ultimate decision though. This means that the cheapest alternative will be

looked at to ensure that it also meets other park goals. Joshua Tree, being a national park, is

dedicated to environmental preservation. The bus technology chosen should provide the park

with an affordable choice while also reducing the carbon footprint of the route system selected.

The park will have to determine how much more spending can be justified for the purpose of

meeting other goals other than reducing costs. The propane bus technology was the lowest in

cost for both the purchasing option and the leasing option. The purchasing option total was just

over $16 million for alternative one while the leasing option was just over $17 million for the

same alternative route system. This is the cheapest route and bus technology combination of all.

The route choice and bus technology might not completely meet all of the park’s stated goals and

objectives for this project however, and that is why several alternatives were considered. The

three cheapest bus technologies for the route alternatives were propane, hybrid, and electric

83 | P a g e

buses. This is true for both the purchasing and leasing options. The propane is significantly lower

in price than the hybrid and electric bus options but the environmental effects are much less

pronounced.

If cost is the only factor considered, it is recommended to choose route alternative one

with the use of purchased propane buses. The park may choose to invest a higher amount of

money and lease the buses over a six year period then buy them out and continue to use them.

This would result in a higher total expenditure by about $1 million, but would reduce the initial

investment required significantly. Two other technology alternatives are recommended if the

park is willing to spend more money for cleaner technology. The hybrid and electric bus

technologies offer better environmental benefits than propane but cost at least $5 million more

over the course of twelve years. The data presented in the tables provided in Appendix D will act

as a guide for the park when choosing the bus alternative that best suits Joshua Tree National

Park.

8.2 Funding Analysis The proposed transit system must be properly funded in order to be successful. To find

the most feasible sources of possible funding, research was conducted on several national parks

with existing transportation programs. Most of these options involve the creation of innovative

partnerships among federal land management agencies, gateway communities, state departments

of transportation, federal transportation agencies, foundations, businesses, regional

organizations, and other groups. Some national parks with transit systems already in place

include Zion National Park in Springdale, Utah, Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor, Maine,

Glacier National Park in West Glacier, Montana, and Lewis and Clark National Historical Park

in Astoria, Oregon. These and other parks were studied for their funding tactics and techniques.

After comparing what each park has previously used, it was determined that there are four

possible funding sources:

1) Federal Grants

2) Park-Sustained Income (ex. entrance fees)

3) Local Opportunities & Donation Funds

4) Sponsorships

84 | P a g e

Park Comparisons

A summary of funding strategies was gathered from several National Parks that currently

have transit systems. These parks include Acadia NP, Zion NP, Lewis and Clark NP, and

Glacier NP. While this is certainly not a comprehensive review of all park funding programs,

this selection of parks provides a good summary of funding strategies.

Acadia National Park

A variety of federal, state, park, local, and private funding has been used to support

national park transportation systems. In regards to Acadia National Park, Maine’s Department of

Transportation purchased the propane-powered shuttle buses. The national park, Friends of

Acadia, and local towns provided the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds.

The funding for the Intelligent Transportation Systems Field Operational Test (FOT) came from

the U.S. Department of Transportation ITS Joint Program Office. Acadia National Park

purchased additional buses with funding from the National Park Service Alternative

Transportation Program (ATP). The park uses fee demonstration funds to help support

development and operation of its buses. The park added the transit fee to the daily, weekly, and

annual park passes in 2004. This is the main source of operation funding for the transit system in

Acadia National Park.

In 2013, Acadia welcomed double the amount of Joshua Tree’s visitors while being

smaller than Joshua Tree by a large margin (Acadia being 47,452 acres large and Joshua Tree

being 790,630 acres large). Acadia National Park had 2,254,992 visitors in 2013, which is

noticeably larger than the 1,383,340 visitors that Joshua Tree National Park welcomed in 2013.

Acadia National Park successfully manages the high visitation rates through its public transit

system. Acadia National Park manages to serve the large amount of visitors despite the fact that

it is smaller than Joshua Tree National Park. By looking at this, it is evident that a transit system

will also benefit Joshua Tree as well.

Zion National Park

The funding methodology for Zion National Park’s transit system is similar to Acadia’s.

Funding came from a mix of federal, state, local, private, non-profit, and private funding. Zion

National Park purchased the 30 propane-powered buses and the 21 trailers. The park was also

85 | P a g e

responsible for funding the transit stops, the parking areas, and the transfer points. The park uses

a portion of the entrance fees to support the ongoing operation of the system. The Town of

Springdale helped fund the bus shuttle stops and related streetscape improvements with the help

of Utah’s Department of Transportation. The town provides ongoing funds for the maintenance

of the transit system. Additional funding comes from hotel/motel taxes, resort taxes, and sales

taxes.

Just like Acadia National Park, Zion greets over 2 million visitors annually. In 2013, Zion

National Park had 2,807,387 visitors. This is well over double the amount that Joshua Tree had

in 2013. In addition, Joshua Tree is over five times the size of Zion (with Joshua Tree being

790,636 acres and Zion being 146,597 acres).

Lewis and Clark National History Park

At the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, a variety of sources were used to fund

the various projects and program elements. A $2.5 million Federal Transit Adminstration grant

was used to fund the purchase of additional buses and the construction of a transit center and

additional shuttle parking in Astoria. Planning, designing, and constructing the park-and-ride and

education center at Netul Landing was funded through a $2 million grant from the National Park

Service ATP fund. The Oregon Department of Transportation provided $500,000 in funding for

new signing and traveler information. In addition, the National Park Service and the Western

Federal Lands Highway Division have funded the ongoing seasonal shuttle service. Since the

national park is only 3,300 acres and has an annual visitation of 191,860, it can be used to study

the proposed funding of the Joshua Tree transit system on a smaller scale.

Glacier National Park

A mix of funding sources was used to purchase the Glacier shuttle buses at Glacier

National Park in West Glacier, Montana. These sources helped construct the transit centers and

service operations. A combination of state-run mitigation funds, such as the Sun Road fund, the

Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users fund, the

Transit in the Parks program, and Flathead County funds were used to purchase the buses.

86 | P a g e

Additional funding from Federal Lands Highway Program, Glacier National Park and the

National Park Service supported the transit centers, stops, information signs, and supports

ongoing operations and marketing. In addition, Glacier National Park implemented a

transportation fee as part of the park entrance fee in 2007 to help fund the shuttle service. This

fee was $5.00 initially and was increased to $7.00 in 2009. This transportation fee is a viable

option that can be implemented into the Joshua Tree National Park transit system.

Federal Grants

The first possible source of funding is a federal grant from one or both primary

transportation agencies, the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway

Administration. Other national parks in California have received federal aid for similar projects.

Yosemite National Park received $1.3 million from the Federal Transit Administration in 2010 to

improve the transportation system within the park. Under the Federal Transit Administration, a

program called the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks was established to address the pollution and

congestion created by increased personal vehicle use. The program provides funding for

alternative transportation methods within and around national parks, forests, and wildlife

refuges; supported transportation methods include shuttle services and railways. Unfortunately,

this program was repealed by Congress recently and the last award winners were announced in

February of 2014, so Joshua Tree National Park would not be eligible to apply for this grant.

However, the Federal Transit Administration is directing all remaining eligible alternative

transportation projects to apply for the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Lands

Transportation Program and Federal Lands Access Program.

The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) provides funds for operational and

maintenance costs of transportation facilities and all components of a transit system, including

vehicles. The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) complements the FLAP in that it

focuses on the transportation infrastructure owned and maintained by Federal lands management

agencies, whereas the FLAP provides funds for State and local roads that access the Federal

estate.

Both of these programs are part of the Federal Highway Administration. Although the

overseeing governmental agency changes from that which supported Yosemite National Park,

87 | P a g e

these grants would be a viable funding alternative. If accepted, one of these grants could help

fund much of the costs associated with the proposed shuttle service.

Park-Sustained Income

A large portion of national parks with transit systems fund their shuttle systems by setting

money aside from the entrance fee. This can be seen in two cohesive charts included in the

Grand Teton National Park Business Plan created by Montana State University. The first

compares different national parks and their transit systems, and the other compares their

respective entrance fees and how much is put aside for the transit system. The purpose of

charging an embedded transit fee is to help cover operating and maintenance costs, and

sometimes even capital costs as well. Zion National Park, for example, implements a mandatory

shuttle system that requires shuttle use to see their most popular attraction. This is effective in

increasing revenue from the entrance fees. Zion charges an entrance fee of $25/vehicle; however,

parking lots are almost always full by 10 am and all overflow vehicles are directed to the

neighboring town to park there and take the shuttle into the park. When arriving without a

vehicle, such as on the shuttle service, each person is charged $12. For a typical family of 4 this

charge quickly adds up. Whereas the typical park entrance fee would have covered the entire

family for $25, using the shuttle system would charge them a total of $48 – practically a 100%

increase. While an increased entrance fee could be implemented to partially pay for a transit

system in the park, officials should also be wary to increase them so high as to deter visitors. In

the feasibility survey collected for this study, it was found that the amount most people were

willing to pay for the use of a transit system was around $5-$6. Multiplied by an approximate

annual traffic count of 366,000 (using 2013 data from the National Park Service), increasing the

Joshua Tree National Park entrance fee from $15 to $20 to include the transit fee could yield

$1,830,000 in one year. Increasing the fee to $25 is also an option that could yield $3,660,000 in

one year, but considering that an overwhelming amount of survey respondents replied that they

would only consider paying if the fee was at or under $5-$6, this could result in a major deterrent

for visitors and a subsequent backlash.

Local Opportunities and Donations Funds

88 | P a g e

The third possible funding source is finding and utilizing local opportunities and creating

private donation funds. There are many local opportunities that exist to a national park. One

option that other national parks have found useful is to implement a sales-tax-based transit

financing formula which primarily consists of targeted taxes on tourism-related expenditures. For

example, Acadia National Park’s surrounding local communities dedicate a portion of their sales

tax revenue to the park’s transit system. This was done because there is a strong relationship

between the local businesses and a national park. The more accessible it is, the more visitors the

park receives and the more visitors pass through the local communities to generate business and

revenue. Furthermore, a donation fund can be created in order for the local communities to help

out with private donations. Possible donors include individuals who support local businesses, the

national park, transit programs. Donation funds can be useful for receiving monetary support for

a transit system that makes Joshua Tree National Park a more enjoyable, accessible, and

environmentally conscious park.

Sponsorships

The fourth possible funding source is to have companies sponsor the transit program. One

alternative in this facet could be for corporate sponsors to donate the necessary shuttles in order

to offset total costs. In return, the corporation may be able advertise via logos and slogans on the

buses. This kind of idea is not new. Since the National Park Foundation is a non-profit

organization, it has been reliant on a number of different partners. This partnership between

sponsors dates back 40 years. A portion of the sponsorship money goes towards the support of

America’s national parks. This support can be a vital asset towards the possible funding of the

shuttle system. Some corporate sponsors that have donated at least $1,000,000 towards the

National Park Foundation include ARAMARK, The Coca-Cola Company, L.L. Bean, and

Underwriters Laboratories (UL). In addition, Disney and AIR WICK have both donated at least

$500,000 to fund the National Parks. Since these companies have a history of showing support

towards America’s national parks, they can also be contacted to fund the Joshua Tree National

Park shuttle service.

In addition to household-name corporations, Joshua Tree National Park has also been

supported by its local businesses and organizations. Some of the park’s projects and attractions,

89 | P a g e

such as its Art Show and Faire and the Joshua Tree Astronomy Arts Theatre, have been funded

by sponsors such as the City of Twentynine Palms, 29 Palms Inn, Twentynine Palms Band of

Mission Indians, The Community Foundation of Riverside & San Bernardino Counties, and

Burrtec Waste & Recycling systems. Local sponsors such as these should also be contacted

regarding the funding of the shuttle system. This will attract people to support both Joshua Tree

National Park and the supporters who sponsor the shuttle service.

By targeting sponsors that have helped Joshua Tree in the past, our group will become

more likely to receive sponsorship money that will go towards the shuttle system. The National

Park Foundation sponsors have a record of supporting national park projects, and Joshua Tree

local businesses and organizations will gain more tourist support by helping the funding of the

project.

Funding Recommendations

By looking at previous transit programs conducted by other national parks, it was

determined that there are four primary sources of funding available: federal grants, park-

sustained income, local opportunities/donation funds, and sponsorships. An initial look at Joshua

Tree National Park’s transit system shows that utilizing a combination of funding techniques that

are already in place in other national parks seems to be the most beneficial option. Just like

Acadia National Park and Zion National Park, funding should be coming from a variety of

federal, state, park, local, and private sources to obtain the maximum amount of funds available.

Overall, a strong relationship between Joshua Tree National Park and other influential entities

will help fund not only the transit program, but other programs in the future.

90 | P a g e

Chapter 9: Recommendation and Conclusion

While transit is not the only alternative which can mitigate parking and entrance station

congestion, it is the solution alternative that can best address those concerns while also

improving accessibility by providing an alternate mode of transportation and promote

environmental sustainability. Several other National Parks have already employed transit

systems to better handle increased visitation and preserve natural resources.

The findings of this report are drawn from visitor survey data, parking lot usage statistics,

comparisons of costs and environmental benefits of transit technologies, ridership and transit

system characteristics seen at other National Parks, and route alternative capital and

infrastructure costs. The visitor survey conducted in April 2014 revealed high interest in a

transit system. Visitors considered hourly service frequency, the ability to take gear needed for

various activities on the bus, and ticket prices as some of the more important transit system

characteristics. The majority of visitors interested in transit stated willingness to pay around $5

for the service which indicates the possibility that the transit system could function off its own

revenue. The visitors that were not willing to take transit cited reasons such as disbelief that

congestion conditions were not bad enough to warrant an investment in transit and aversion to

having to transport gear on the shuttle. Joshua Tree NP is a premier rock climbing destination,

for which large and heavy gear is required, thus this is a valid concern that will need to be

addressed.

The parking study conducted in February 2014 on a busy holiday weekend validated the

observed congestion effects reported by Park Staff. Several sites included in the study

experienced parking overflow conditions for several hours during the study time period. Parking

overflow leads to unsafe conditions for visitors and can cause damage to vegetation and curbing.

A license plate survey revealed the origin-destination (OD) travel patterns of park visitors. OD

travel patterns combined with the transit ridership prediction, which was based on Rocky

Mountain NP annual transit ridership statistics, was used to determine the stop location, service

frequency, and number of buses needed to service each route.

Based on all these considerations the final recommendation is for route Alternative 2,

with propane buses acquired through a leasing option. Route Alternative 2 serves visitors at two

91 | P a g e

different entrance locations while maintaining access to the most popular sites in the park.

Dividing traffic between entrance locations can help alleviate traffic at the Joshua Tree Visitor

Center (JTVC) and its surrounding intersections and reduce the need to expand parking lot

capacity at the JTVC location. Propane buses possess the best tradeoff between reduced

emissions and costs. The cost for Alternative 2 is approximately $28 million including leasing,

operations, and infrastructure costs, making it one of the less expensive options for the Park.

To better support this decision, several additional extensions can be integrated to this

study for future work. Among these extensions is a cost- benefit analysis that takes into account

emissions reductions benefits. Second, a more in depth, quantitative, traffic impact analysis

needs to be conducted to ensure that any possible congestion issues are addressed. Third,

challenges from adding infrastructure within park grounds needs to be identified in order to

avoid severe environmental damages. Lastly, the possibility of extending the transit route system

to local businesses must be further researched as this option could possibly serve as a future

shuttle funding opportunity.

92 | P a g e

References "An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)." EPA.

Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html>.

"An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality." United States Environmental Protection Agency 6 June

2012.

"Agencies Dedicate Electric Buses at Yosemite National Park." Yosemite Electric Buses. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/1995_releases/95-09-Sept-1995/95-09-22_Yosemite_Electric_Buse.txt>.

ARB “Mobile Source Emission Inventory” (January, 2013) http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm

Austin, Mike. "Why 2013 is the Year of the Diesel." Popular Mechanics 2013. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/diesel/why-2013-is-the-year-of-the-diesel#slide-1

Barnitt, R.. "St. Louis Metro Biodiesel (B20) Transit Bus Evaluation." : n. pag. Web. 29 Apr.

2014.

Behrens, Zach . "Burbank to Unveil New Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus." LAist. N.p., 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://laist.com/2010/04/26/burbank_to_unveil_new_hydrogen_fuel.php>

Berman, Brad. "Electric Cars Pros and Cons." PluginCars.com. N.p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. <http://www.plugincars.com/electric-cars-pros-and-cons-128637.html>.

"Biodiesel." Alternative Fuels Data Center. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel.html

Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide. Rep. 4th ed. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, January 2009. Retrieved from http://www.biodiesel.org/docs/using-hotline/nrel-handling-and-use.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Bloomberg News. "Toyota to help set up hydrogen stations as fuel-cell cars arrive." North Jersey. N.p., 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.northjersey.com/news/toyota-to-help-set-up-hydrogen-stations-as-fuel-cell-cars-arrive-1.698846>.

CalTrans “EMFAC” (February 2014) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm

93 | P a g e

"Carbon Dioxide Emissions." Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

"The Chemistry of Biodiesel." Chemistry The Chemistry of Biodiesel Comments. Goshen College. Retrieved from http://www.goshen.edu/chemistry/biodiesel/chemistry-of/

Clark, N. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Association. Transit Bus Life

Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emissions Estimation. Washington D.C.: , 2007. Web.

<http://www.proterra.com/images/WVU_FinalReport.pdf>.

Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Oct. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_oct_2013.pdf

"CMEM - Model." Center for Environmental Research & Technology. Bourns College of Engineering: University of California, Riverside, n.d. Retrieved from http://www.cert.ucr.edu/cmem/model.html

Cone, Marla. "New diesel trucks and buses cut soot and smog more than 90%." Environmental Health News 18 June 2009. http://www.howstuffworks.com/diesel1.htm

Coe, Dana L, Douglas S Eisinger, Jeffrey D Prouty, and Tom Kear. "USER'S GUIDE FOR CL4: A USER-FRIENDLY INTERFACE FOR THE CALINE 4 MODEL FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENTS." California Department Of Transportation. N.p., 1 June 1998. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/documents/CL4Guide.pdf>

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (Oct. 2005) “Demonstration and Evaluation of Hybrid Diesel-Electric Transit Buses” < http://www.ctcase.org/reports/diesel-hybrid.pdf>

"Daily Teasury Real Long-Term Rates." : n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

"Electric Buses Energize Downtown Chattanooga." U.S. Department of Energy. N.p., n.d. Web.

31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/chatt_cs.pdf>.

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2006) “Hybrid Buses: Costs and Benefits”. http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_hybrid_bus_032007.pdf

94 | P a g e

"EPA Releases MOVES2010b Mobile Source Emissions Model Revision: Questions and Answers ." EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420f13004.pdf>

Eudy, Leslie. "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Evaluation." : n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

Eudy, Leslie. "SunLine Transit Agency Advanced Technology Fuel Cell Bus Evaluation."

Fourth Results Report: n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

"FC Velocity." Ballard. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.ballard.com/files/pdf/bus/bus_benefits_fcvelocity.pdf>

Federal Transit Administration (Aug. 2005). “Analysis of Electric Drive Technologies for Transit Application: Battery-Electric, Hybrid=-Electric, and Fuel Cells”. <http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Electric_Drive_Bus_Analysis.pdf>

FHWA, "Transportation Air Quality: Selected Facts and Figures” (2006) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/fact_book/page03.cfm

Freehan, Brian. " Propane Powers Zion National Park’s,." n.d. Autogasusa.org. 2014. 8 April 2014.

"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cost Effective Study." Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. <http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/

"Greenhouse Gas vs. Smog Forming Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/you/sm

Goldstein M "Carbon monoxide poisoning" Journal of Emergency Nursing: JEN: Official Publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association 34 (December 2008)

Hallmark, S. "Assessing the Costs for Hybrid versus Regular Transit Buses." Tech Brief. (2012):

n. page. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/publications/_documents/t2summaries/hybrid_transit_bu

s_tech_brief1.pdf>.

Hartmann, James. "Budget Memor #67: Lifecycle Cost Comparison of Clean Diesel and Hybrid

Dash Buses." : n. pag. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

95 | P a g e

"Health." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html

Joshua Tree Hotels. (2014). Tripadvisor LLC. Retrieved December 28, 2013 from, <http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g32544-Joshua_Tree_California-Hotels.html#MAPVIEW>.

Joshua Tree National Park (U.S. National Park Service). (Jan. 2014). U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved January 2, 2014 from, <http://www.nps.gov/jotr/index.htm?utm_source=publish2&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=www.kpbs.org>.

Kack, David. "Grand Teton National Park Public Transit Business Plan." . The National Park

Service, 20 Oct. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/eybjof0oiys0y8z/public-transit-business-plan.pdf>.

MacKechnie, Christopher. "Electric Buses- An Introduction." . N.p., 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Apr.

2014. <http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/Electric-Buses-An-

Introduction.htm>.

MacKechnie, Christopher. "How Much Does A Bus Cost to Purchase and Operate?." About.com Public Transport. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://publictransport.about.com/od/Transit_Vehicles/a/How-Much-Does-A-Bus-Cost-To-Purchase-And-Operate.htm>.

"MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm>.

Mobility and Public Transportation. Grand Teton National Park Public Transit Business Plan. (Oct. 2009). National Park Service: Grand Teton National Park. Western Transportation Institute: Montana State University.

"Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) User Guide for MOVES2010b." EPA. N.p., 1 June 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b12001b.pdf>

"MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator)." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm>

National Renewable Energy Laboratory—U.S. Department of Energy, Regional Transportation District, and Cummins, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40128.pdf

96 | P a g e

"Nitrogen Dioxide." Environmental Protection Agency 2014 4 April.

"Overview of Greenhouse Gases." United States Environmental Protection Agency 27 January 2014. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html

"Park Reports." . National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

<https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park>.

Phillips, Ari. "Toyota Unveils Zero-Emissions Hydrogen Fuel-Cell ‘Car Of The Future’ For Sale Next Year." ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 7 Jan. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/07/3126921/toyota-unveils-hydrogen-powered-fuel-cell-car/>.

Plosky, Eric. "Department of Interior-Bus and Ferry Lifecycle Cost Modeling." . U.S.

Department of Transportation, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/department-interior-bus-

and-ferry-lifecycle-cost-modeling>.

Proc, Kenneth, Robb Barnitt, R. R. Hayes, Mattew Ratcliff, Robert L. McCormick, Lou Ha, and Howard L. Fang. 100,000-Mile Evaluation of Transit Buses Operated on Biodiesel Blends (B20).

"Propane Powered School Buses." West Virginia Department of Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 31

Mar. 2014. <http://www.wvapt.org/documents/12%20Propane%

20Powered%20School%20Buses.pdf>.

Richards, G. "VTA finds hydrogen buses cost more to run than diesel vehicles." San Jose

Mercury News 02 28 2008, n. pag. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8365544>.

Scora, George, and Matthew Barth. (2006, June). Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model (CMEM), Version 3.01: User's Guide. Univeristy of California, Riverside: Center for Environmental Reseach and Technology. Retrieved from http://cmscert.engr.ucr.edu/cmem/docs/CMEM_User_Guide_v3.01d.pdf

Shuttle, Green Transit - The Zion. National Park Service. n.d. 8 April 2014 http://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/shuttle-system.htm

97 | P a g e

Sinosky, Kelly. "The Vancouver Sun." www.vancouversun.com. N.p., 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.<http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Whistler+hydrogen+fuel+cell+program+jeopardy/9212028/story.html>

Spendelow, Jacob. "Fuel Cell Technologies Program Record." Fuel Cell Bus Targets: n. pag.

Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

"Taxpayer Savings." . Moving Forward With Propane, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

<http://movingforwardwithpropane.com/savings.php>.

“Things to do in Joshua Tree National Park.” (2014). Tripadvisor LCC. Retrieved December 30,

2013 from, <www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g143037-Activities

Joshua_Tree_National_Park_California.html>.

Tuttle, Brad. "2014 May Turn Out to Be the Year of the Diesel Engine." Time Magazine 23 May 2013. http://business.time.com/2013/08/23/2014-may-turn-out-to-be-the-year-of-the-diesel-engine/

Update, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. U.S. Energy Information Administration . 7 April 2014. 8 April 2014. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

"U.S. Department of Energy." n.d. Propane Vehicles. 8 April 2014. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/propane.html

U.S. EPA National air quality and emissions trends report -2003 special studies edition. EPA/454/R-03/005 Research Triangle Park, NC (2003) http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/

U.S. EPA, “Particulate Matter” (March 2013) http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/

Visitor Services Project, PSU. Acadia National Park Visitor Study. (Jun. 2010). National Park

Service: U.S. Department of the Interior. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Visitor Services Project, PSU. Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Study. (Oct. 2010). National

Park Service: U.S. Department of the Interior. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Visitor Services Project, PSU. Rocky Mountain National Park Visitor Study. (Oct. 2011).

National Park Service: U.S. Department of the Interior. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

98 | P a g e

Volpe, John. Alternative Transportation System Demand Estimation for Federal Land

Management Agencies. (Sept. 2011). U.S. Department of the Interior

"Zion National Park -UT." . U.S. Department of Transportation, 2 Aug. 2013. Web. 29 Apr.

2014. <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_traf_cong/zion_park_case.htm>.

99 | P a g e

Appendix A

Section A.1: Survey Results Question (1): On this visit to Southern California, what was the primary reason that you and your group

visited the Joshua Tree National Park area (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms)? Please check only

one.

□ Visit site(s) within Joshua Tree National Park

□ Visit friends/relatives in the area

□ Visit friends/relatives at the US Marine Corps Base

□ Business

□ Passing by (or driving through) to another destination

□ Other reasons

□ Visit other attractions in the area (Other attractions visited: ____________________)

100 | P a g e

Question (2): How often do you visit Joshua Tree National Park?

□ First time visitor □ Regular visitor (2-10 times/year)

□ Infrequent visitor (Once or twice every year or so)

Question (3): On this visit, how long do you and your group plan to visit the park? Please check only one.

□ Less than 5 hours □ 1 day □ Multiple days

101 | P a g e

Question (4): On your visit to the park today, what type of group were you with? (Check all that apply)

□ Alone □ Family □ Friends □ Climbing group

□ Commercial guided tour □ School or educational group □ Other

Question (5): On this visit to the park today, please list the number of each type of vehicle(s) in which you and your

group arrived:

Passenger vehicles: ___cars(s) ___van(s) ___SUV(s) ___Pick-up(s)

Recreational Vehicle (R.V.): ___ Bus: ___ Bike(s): ___

Other (specify type of vehicle): _______________________

102 | P a g e

Question (6): How many people, including yourself, are in your personal group today? Please provide the

number of people in each age group.

Children (0-17 years): _________

Adults (18-62 years): __________

Seniors (63+ years): __________

Question (7): What is the U.S. ZIP code (or name of country) of your group’s primary residence?

103 | P a g e

Question (8): Last night, where did you and your personal group stay? Please check only one.

Outside the Park

□ Home or residence of friends and/or relatives

□ Vacation rental home

□ RV/trailer camping (campground: ___________________)

□ Tent camping (campground: _______________________)

□ Hotel/Motel (name of hotel: _______________________)

□ Other (please specify: ____________________________)

Inside the Park

□ RV/trailer camping (campground:

___________________)

□ Tent camping (campground:

_______________________)

□ Other (please specify:

____________________________)

104 | P a g e

105 | P a g e

Question (9): On this visit today, at which location did you first ENTER the park?

□ Twentynine Palms (North Entrance) □ Joshua Tree (West Entrance)

□ Cottonwood Spring (South Entrance) □ Indian Cove

Question (10): On this visit today, at which location do you plan to EXIT the park?



106 | P a g e

Question (11): On the list below, please indicate the order in which you and your group visited these sites at Joshua

Tree National Park during this trip. Simply write 1, 2, 3, and so forth, on the line beside each place you visited. Do

not mark any sites that you did not visit. In the last column, indicate the length of time you spent at the site. See map

above for assistance locating sites within the park.

107 | P a g e

108 | P a g e

Question (12): On the list below, please check all activities that you and your group participated in at Joshua Tree

National Park.

Question (13): If you arrived in a personal vehicle to the current site, how much time did it take

for you to find a parking spot?

109 | P a g e

Question (14): Please comment below if you have had any negative parking experiences within the park on your

current visit.

Results: There are several themes that free response answers fall into.

Campsites: Visitors complained about lack of parking at their campsites. Some also had trouble finding

how to get there.

General parking: Some visitors commented on the limited parking options in the afternoon. Some were

forced to park in RV stalls.

Question (15): Have you ever used public transit (such as a bus or shuttle) provided by a national park to access

sites within that park?

110 | P a g e

Question (16): The proposed Park Shuttle System for Joshua Tree National Park would allow visitors to park for

free at the entrance stations and use the shuttle to visit the major sites within the Park. If such a Park Shuttle System

existed within Joshua Tree National Park, would you have considered using the shuttle system for this visit today?

Question (17): How often would a shuttle need to pass by a stop (pick-up point) for you to consider using the

service in Joshua Tree National Park?

111 | P a g e

Question (18): On a future visit, how important would the following services and characteristics of a shuttle system

be? Please indicate the importance of each characteristic with ‘1’ indicating ‘not important’ and ‘5’ indicating ‘very

important’.

Question (19): Which of the amounts listed below best describes the most you would pay per person per day

(unlimited rides) to use a Park Shuttle System that operated between sites within the Park (not including Indian

Cove and Black Rock areas)? Assume that the Park entry fee still applies, parking is available for free at the

entrance stations, and that the shuttle runs at least every hour.

112 | P a g e

Question (20): In addition to the Park Shuttle System that operated between sites within the park, a transit service

could operate between local hotels, campgrounds (including Indian Cove and Black Rock areas), and the Park

entrances. Which of the amounts listed below best describes the most you would pay per person per day (unlimited

rides) for use of a shuttle system that picked up at local sites and worked in coordination with the Park Shuttle

System within the park? Assume that the Park entry fee still applies, parking is available for free at the entrance

stations, and that the shuttle runs at least every hour.

Question (21): Would you be interested in an additional transit service that connected to regional cities including

Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Indio?

113 | P a g e

Question (22): How much longer would you tolerate waiting on average for a parking spot at any site within the

Park before you would consider using the Park Shuttle Service?

Question (23): Why would you not consider taking a Park Shuttle System within Joshua Tree National Park? Please

check all that apply. Leave blank if you would consider using a shuttle service.

114 | P a g e

Question (24): Please provide any other comments you may have about a future Park Shuttle System or

transportation issues in Joshua Tree National Park.

Results: There are several themes that free response answers fall into.

Visitors would like shuttle connections with existing transit options outside the park.

Visitors are unsure if a shuttle system is necessary.

Shuttle stops should have good facilities with bathrooms and information boards.

Visitors are concerned with taking gear on the bus.

Visitors commented that the shuttle system is a good idea.

115 | P a g e

Section A.2: Survey Questionnaire


Study Information Sheet

Transit Feasibility Study for Joshua Tree National Park

Lead Researcher Bradley Terpening

Undergraduate Student

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Student Chapter


[email protected]

Faculty Sponsor Stephen Ritchie

Professor

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Faculty Sponsor


[email protected]

(949) 824-4214

Joshua Tree National Park has seen an increase in the number of vehicles that enter the park over the past years. Like

several other National Parks including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, and

Grand Canyon National Park, Joshua Tree National Park is proposing a shuttle system to transport park visitors to major

points of interest throughout the park. The purpose of this survey is to gauge visitor interest in a voluntary Park Shuttle

System. The data collected will be analyzed and used to design a Park Shuttle System, which meets the needs of Park

visitors. The study is being conducted at the University of California, Irvine, as part of the Institute of Transportation

Engineers Student Chapter Annual Project, under the supervision of the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering.

You are being asked to participate in a research study about visitor interest in public transit at Joshua Tree

National Park.

You are eligible to participate in this study if you are at least 18 years of age or older.

The research procedures involve completion of a short survey. The survey should take only 10-15 minutes of

your time.

The research intends to cause no physical or psychological harm or offense and to abide by all commonly

acknowledged ethical codes.

There are no direct benefits from participation in the study. However, this study may explain Park visitor transit

preferences needed to design a transit system.

You will not be compensated for your participation in this research study.

All research data collected will be stored securely and confidentially. You will not be asked for your name,

address, phone number, or any other identifiable information.

If you have any comments, concerns, or questions regarding the conduct of this research please contact the

researchers listed at the top of this form.

Please contact UCI’s Office of Research by phone, (949) 824-6662, by e-mail at [email protected] or at 5171

California Avenue, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92617 if you are unable to reach the researchers listed at the top of the

form and have general questions; have concerns or complaints about the research; have questions about your

rights as a research subject; or have general comments or suggestions.

Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no cost to you for participating. You may choose to skip a

question. You may refuse to participate or discontinue your involvement at any time without penalty. You are

free to withdraw from this study at any time. If you decide to withdraw from this study you should notify the

research team immediately.

This research study currently holds UCI IRB approval.

tel:%28949%29%20824-4214

mailto:[email protected]

116 | P a g e

Questions (1) - (14) relate to visitor demographics and park usage:

(1) On this visit to Southern California, what was the primary reason that you and your group visited the Joshua Tree National Park

area (Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms)? Please check only one.

□ Visit site(s) within Joshua Tree National Park □ Visit friends/relatives in the area

□ Visit friends/relatives at the US Marine Corps Base □ Passing by (or driving through) to another destination

□ Business □ Other reasons

□ Visit other attractions in the area (Other attractions visited: ________________________________)

(2) How often do you visit Joshua Tree National Park?

□ First time visitor □ Regular visitor (2-10 times/year) □ Infrequent visitor (Once or twice every year or so)

(3) On this visit, how long do you and your group plan to visit the park? Please check only one.

□ Less than 5 hours □ 1 day □ Multiple days

(4) On your visit to the park today, what type of group were you with? (Check all that apply)

□ Alone □ Family □ Friends □ Climbing group

□ Commercial guided tour □ School or educational group □ Other

(5) On this visit to the park today, please list the number of each type of vehicle(s) in which you and your group arrived:

Passenger vehicles: ______cars(s) ______van(s) ______SUV(s) ______Pick-up(s)

Recreational Vehicle (R.V.): ______ Bus: ______ Bike(s): ______

Other (specify type of vehicle): _______________________

For questions (6) and (7) your personal group is defined as anyone who you are visiting the park with, such as family, spouse, friends,

etc. It does not include the larger group you may be traveling with, such as an organized tour.

(6) How many people, including yourself, are in your personal group today? Please provide the number of people in each

age group.

Children (0-17 years): _________ Adults (18-62 years): __________ Seniors (63+ years): __________

(7) What is the U.S. ZIP code (or name of country) of your group’s primary residence? ____________________

(8) Last night, where did you and your personal group stay? Please check only one.

Outside the Park

□ Home or residence of friends and/or relatives

□ Vacation rental home



□ Hotel/Motel (name of hotel: _______________________)


Inside the Park




(9) On this visit today, at which location did you first ENTER the park? See map on next page.



(10) On this visit today, at which location do you plan to EXIT the park? See map on next page.



117 | P a g e

(11) On the list below, please indicate the order in which you and your group visited these sites at Joshua Tree National Park during

this trip. Simply write 1, 2, 3, and so forth, on the line beside each place you visited. Do not mark any sites that you did not visit.

In the last column, indicate the length of time you spent at the site. See map above for assistance locating sites within the park.

Site Name Order Visited Length of time spent at site

1. Joshua Tree Visitor Center □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

2. Oasis Visitor Center □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

3. Cottonwood Visitor Center □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

4. Keys Ranch □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

5. Keys View □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

6. Barker Dam □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

7. Hidden Valley □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

8. Lost Horse Mine □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

9. Geology Tour Road □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

10. Jumbo Rocks Area □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

11. Cottonwood Springs □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

12. Cholla Cactus Garden □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

13. Fortynine Palms Oasis □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

14. Lost Palms Oasis □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

15. Indian Cove □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

16. Black Rock Canyon □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

17. Covington Flats □ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

Other (please specify):

□ less than 1 hour □ more than 1 hour

(12) On the list below, please check all activities that you and your group participated in at Joshua Tree National Park.

□ Sightseeing □ Bicycling □ Touring visitor centers

□ Day hiking □ Horseback riding □ Walking self-guided nature trails

118 | P a g e

□ Picnicking □ Technical climbing □ Visiting historical/archaeological sites

□ Stargazing □ Rock scrambling (without gear) □ Attending ranger-led programs

□ Camping □ Bouldering □ Attending field classes/other guided activities

□ Backpacking overnight □ Other (please specify): ________________________________________________

(13) If you arrived in a personal vehicle to the current site, how much time did it take for you to find a parking spot?

□ No time spent, a parking spot was available immediately

□ 5 minutes □ 10-15 minutes □ More than 15 minutes

□ I was not able to find a marked stall (What did you do? ______________________________________)

(14) Please comment below if you have had any negative parking experiences within the park on your current visit.

Questions (15) - (24) visitor preferences for a future shuttle system in Joshua Tree National Park:

(15) Have you ever used public transit (such as a bus or shuttle) provided by a national park to access sites within that park?

□ Yes, please specify the park(s): ____________________________________ □ No

(16) The proposed Park Shuttle System for Joshua Tree National Park would allow visitors to park for free at the entrance stations and

use the shuttle to visit the major sites within the Park. If such a Park Shuttle System existed within Joshua Tree National Park,

would you have considered using the shuttle system for this visit today? □ Yes □ No

(17) How often would a shuttle need to pass by a stop (pick-up point) for you to consider using the service in Joshua Tree National

Park? □ Would not use □ every 15 minutes □ every 30 minutes □ Hourly

(18) On a future visit, how important would the following services and characteristics of a shuttle system be? Please indicate the

importance of each characteristic with ‘1’ indicating ‘not important’ and ‘5’ indicating ‘very important’.

Monday-Friday shuttle service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Frequency of shuttle service □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ability to take bikes on shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ability to transport gear on shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

On-board orientation by Park Ranger □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

On-board orientation by TV or audio recording □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Alternative fuel shuttle □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

Ticket price □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5

119 | P a g e

(19) Which of the amounts listed below best describes the most you would pay per person per day (unlimited rides) to use a Park

Shuttle System that operated between sites within the Park (not including Indian Cove and Black Rock areas)? Assume that the

Park entry fee still applies, parking is available for free at the entrance stations, and that the shuttle runs at least every hour.

□ $0 □ $1-2 □ $3-4 □ $5-6 □ $7-8 □ $9-10

(20) In addition to the Park Shuttle System that operated between sites within the park, a transit service could operate between local

hotels, campgrounds (including Indian Cove and Black Rock areas), and the Park entrances. Which of the amounts listed below

best describes the most you would pay per person per day (unlimited rides) for use of a shuttle system that picked up at local sites

and worked in coordination with the Park Shuttle System within the park? Assume that the Park entry fee still applies, parking is

available for free at the entrance stations, and that the shuttle runs at least every hour.

□ $0 □ $1-2 □ $3-4 □ $5-6 □ $7-8 □ $9-10

(21) Would you be interested in an additional transit service that connected to regional cities including Desert Hot Springs, Palm

Springs, Palm Desert, and Indio? □ Yes □ No

(22) How much longer would you tolerate waiting on average for a parking spot at any site within the Park before you would consider

using the Park Shuttle Service?

□ 5 minutes □ 10 min. □ 15 min. □ 20 min. □ More than 20 minutes

(23) Why would you not consider taking a Park Shuttle System within Joshua Tree National Park? Please check all that apply. Leave

blank if you would consider using a shuttle service.

□ I don’t think traffic and parking congestion are severe enough for a shuttle system to be necessary.

□ I’m uncomfortable leaving my vehicle in a parking lot.

□ I’m unsure if the frequency of the service would accommodate my planned activities.

□ Planned activities in the Park require equipment, which would be inconvenient to take on a shuttle.

□ I would not feel safe in the Park without access to my private vehicle.

□ I need my own personal vehicle.

□ Other (Please specify): ____________________________________________________________

(24) Please provide any other comments you may have about a future Park Shuttle System or transportation issues in Joshua Tree

National Park.

END OF SURVEY

Thank you for your participation!

120 | P a g e

Section A.3: Survey Information Card

121 | P a g e

Appendix B

Section B.1: Park Visitor Comparison

Table 16: Visitor Survey Data Matrix

Visitor Survey Data Joshua Tree Rocky Mountain Acadia

Home State California Colorado Maine

Survey Year 2010 2011 2009

2013 Visitation (people) 1,383,340 2,991,141 2,254,922




Group Size 2 [52%] 2 [56%] 2 [37%]

Group Type Family [54%] Family [58%] Family [73%]

Visitors Origin

In State [50%] In State [76%] In State [14%]

Out of State [50%] Out of State [24%] Out of State [86%]

International Visitor (Assumption <1%

= 0.5%)

19% ~1% ~11%

Lifetime Visits

1 [56%] 21 or more [37%] 1 [50%]

5 or more [22%] 5 or fewer [34%] 6 or more [23%]

Age Groups

76 or older [2%] 76 or older [2%] 76 or older [2%]

71-75 [4%] 71-75 [3%] 71-75 [2%]

66-70 [7%] 66-70 [5%] 66-70 [4%]

61-65 [12%] 61-65 [11%] 61-65 [7%]

56-60 [9%] 56-60 [11%] 56-60 [8%]

51-55 [7%] 51-55 [13%] 51-55 [11%]

46-50 [7%] 46-50 [9%] 46-50 [11%]

41-45 [8%] 41-45 [6%] 41-45 [9%]

36-40 [8%] 36-40 [7%] 36-40 [7%]

31-35 [9%] 31-35 [7%] 31-35 [4%]

26-30 [8%] 26-30 [8%] 26-30 [4%]

21-25 [6%] 21-25 [5%] 21-25 [4%]

16-20 [2%] 16-20 [2%] 16-20 [5%]

11-15 [3%] 11-15 [4%] 11-15 [9%]

10 or younger [8%] 10 or younger [7%] 10 or younger [13%]

Primary Reasons for Visit

Visit the Park [75%] Visit the Park [73%]

Visit other attractions

[8%]

Visit other attractions

[8%]

Unplanned Visit [7%] Visit Friends and relatives

[7%]

Primary Activities during Visit

Day hiking [27%] Viewing scenery [36%] Sightseeing for Pleasure

[83%]

Sightseeing [23%] Wildlife Viewing [45%] Hiking on Trails [79%]

Technical Climbing

[14%]

Snowshoeing [42%] Walking on Carriage Roads

[44%]

Length of Visit (hrs)

6 or more [40%] 7 or more [20%] 6 or more [64%]

4-5 [31%] 5-6 [29%] 4-5 [20%]

Up to 1 [9%] 3-4 [10%] 2-3 [12%]

Length of Visit (days)

1 day [11%] 1 day [19%] 1 day [8%]

2 days [32%] 2 days [39%] 2 - 3 days [42%]

3 days [24%] 3 days [29%] 4-5 days [23%]

4 or more [32%] 4 or more [23%] 6-7 days [17%]

122 | P a g e

Table 17: Geographical Data Matrix

Geographical

Information

Joshua Tree Rocky Mountain Acadia


Size of Land Mass

(Acres)

789,745 265,828 47,389

Trails (miles) 33.65 355 125

Main Attractions

Jumbo Rocks Area

(Viewpoint) [55%]

Bear Lake [44%] Cadillac Mountain

Summit [75%]

Hidden Valley [50%] Beaver Meadows Visitor

Center [28%]

Jordan Pond House and

area [67%]


[50%]

Fall River Visitor Center

[23%]

Sand Beach [63%]

Keys View (Viewpoint)

[41%]

Sprague Lake [21%] Thunder Hole [62%]

Cholla Cactus Garden

(Nature Walk) [37%]

Hidden Valley [17%] Seawall Area [36%]

Barker Dam [37%] Old Fall River Road

(Scenic Road) [15%]

Bass Harbor Head

Lighthouse [35%]

Oasis Visitor Center [26%] Trail Ridge Road (Scenic

Road) [13%]

Bubble Rock [35%]


[24%]

Kawuneeche Visitor

Center [11%]

Bubble Pond [34%]

Cottonwood Spring (Natural

Springs) [19%]

Colorado River Trail

[9%]

Eagle Lake Parking Area

[33%]

Things to do

Art and Photography Art and Photography

Auto Touring Auto Touring

Backpacking Backpacking

Biking Biking Biking

Bird watching

Camping Camping Camping

Fishing Fishing

Hiking Hiking Hiking

Horseback Riding &

Stock Use

Horseback Riding &

Stock Use

Picnicking Picnicking Picnicking

Ranger and Interpretive

Programs

Ranger and Interpretive

Programs

Rock Climbing Rock Climbing

Tours Tours Tours

Viewpoints Viewpoints

Water Activities

Winter Sports

Campsites 517 429

Number of Access Points 2 3

Entrance Fee/Private

Vehicle

$15.00 $20.00 $20.00

Entrance Fee/Person $5.00 $10.00 $5.00

123 | P a g e

Table 18: Transit System Data Matrix

Transit System

Information

Joshua Tree Rocky Mountain Acadia


Type of Transit System Bus Bus Bus

Frequency 30 minutes 15-30 minutes

Type of Service Free Free Free

Type of Fuel Diesel Propane

Number of Buses N/A 29

Number of Routes 3 3 8

Hourly Operating Cost $144 $48

Operating Hours

7 am - 7 pm 6:45 am - 10:45

pm

Seasonal Schedule

Winter - Daily Winter - No

service

Winter - Daily

Spring - Daily Spring -

Weekends

Spring - Daily

Summer -

Daily

Summer - Daily Summer - Daily

Fall - Daily Fall - Weekends Fall - Daily

124 | P a g e

Section B.2 : National Parks Visitation by Age Group (%)

125 | P a g e

Section B.3: National Parks Visitation by In State and Out of State Visitors (%)

Section B.4: Number of Campsites in National Parks

126 | P a g e

Section B.5: Size of Land Mass of National Parks

127 | P a g e

Section B.6: Intra-park Travel Demands

Top row: Joshua Tree Visitor Center, Hidden Valley, and Barker Dam. Second row: Keys View.

Third Row: Jumbo Rock and Oasis Visitor Center

128 | P a g e

Top row: Joshua Tree Visitor Center, Hidden Valley, Barker Dam, and Keys View. Second Row:

Jumbo Rock, Cholla Cactus Garden, and Cottonwood Visitor Center.

129 | P a g e

Appendix C

Section C.1: Infrastructure Tables Table 19: Parking Lot Capacities Referencing Figure 1

Parking

Lot ID

Paved/

Unpaved

Striped Approximate # of

Reg. Parking

Spaces

Handicap

Parking

Spaces

RV

Spaces

Restrooms

1 yes yes 16 0 0 no

2 yes yes 72 4 8 yes

3 55 1 5 yes


5 55 4 4 yes

6 12 0 0 yes


8 33 0 1 yes

9 43 0 0 yes

a yes yes 20 2 3 yes

b 10 0 0 yes

c yes yes 8 1 2 no

d yes yes 26 2 5 yes

e 19 0 0 no

f 10 0 0 yes

g yes yes 32 0 4 yes

h 0 0 7 no

i yes yes 22 2 3 yes

j yes yes 43 2 5 yes

k no no 26 0 0 no

l part no 41 0 0 no

m 6 0 0 no

n yes yes 22 - 0 no

o yes yes 19 2 5 yes

p 12 0 3 yes

130 | P a g e

Table 20: Parking Lot Hourly Volume Counts for Day 1 (Saturday)

Time Cholla

Cactus

Hidden

Valley

Barker Dam Jumbo Rock Key’s View

9:00 AM 10 21 19 2 4

10:00 AM 9 57 37 5 13

11:00 AM 15 87 70 17 18

12:00 PM 21 91 87 19 33

1:00 PM 17 103 89 20 28

2:00 PM 23 112 97 23 27

3:00 PM 14 120 92 29 28

4:00 PM 23 72 72 32 35

Table 21: Parking Lot Hourly Volume Counts for Day 2 (Sunday)

Time Cholla

Cactus

Hidden

Valley

Barker Dam Jumbo Rock Key’s View

9:00 AM 5 45 20 1 2

10:00 AM 14 76 39 3 5

11:00 AM 31 116 77 21 12

12:00 PM 9 166 95 33 38

1:00 PM 25 163 117 34 27

2:00 PM 16 166 109 37 35

3:00 PM 27 149 103 28 46

4:00 PM 19 136 94 35 31

131 | P a g e

Section C.2: Infrastructure Images

Sample Infrastructure Photos:

Figure 32: Restrooms at Joshua Tree National Park

Figure 33: Shuttle stop from Zion National Park

132 | P a g e

Section C.3: Cost Estimates Table 22: Alternative 1 Infrastructure Costs

Infrastructure Description Quantity Unit Cost ($/unit) Total Cost ($)

Bus Stops

Paved Landing Area (including

ADA accessible bus ramps)

12

11,000

132,000 Shelter/Canopy

Benches

Information Panel

Parking Lots * Grading 26,218

SF

40 (per SF) 1,048,720

Paving

Striping

Land Purchase -- 0.22

acres

27,778 (per acre) 6,111

Parking Lot and

Shuttle Signage

Parking 1

180

6,660 Yield 12

Crosswalk 12

Bus Stop 12

Parallel Bus Bays

Preliminary Eng./Environmental 1 1,500 1,500

Construction Contract (including

contingency)

1 110,000 110,000

Construction Engineering 12 15,000 180,000

Emergency Call

Box

Wireless - Digital Two-Way

Radio

8 6,000 48,000

Light Poles

Pole 22

500

11,000 Light Bulb

Arm

Solar Panel

Crosswalk Striping High-Visibility 4 2,600 10,400

Restroom Waterless 1 -- --

Bus Technologies -- -- -- --

Technologies

Propane Technology

1

37,000 - 175,000 varies

based on situation and

need.

37,000 -

175,000

Hybrid Technology 1 2,500/unit 2,500

Biodiesel 1 1,461/ bus -

Total w/o bus technology $1,554,391

*Note: It was assumed that the parking lot at the Joshua Tree visitor center is not currently paved

because based on the current conditions, the lot would need serious of work

133 | P a g e

Table 23: Alternative 2 Infrastructure Costs


Bus Stops



10

11,000

110,000

Shelter/Canopy

Benches

Information Panel

Parking Lots*

Grading

26,218

SF

40 (per SF)

1,048,720 Paving

Striping

Parking Lot and

Shuttle Signage

Parking 2

180

5,760 Yield 10

Crosswalk 10

Bus Stop 10

Parallel Bus Bays

Preliminary Eng./Environmental 1 1,500 1,500

Construction Contract (including

contingency)

1 110,000 110,000


Emergency Call

Box


Radio

7 6,000 42,000

Light Poles

Pole

20

500

10,000 Light Bulb

Arm

Solar Panel



Technologies

Propane Technology

1

37,000 - 175,000 varies


need

37,000 -

175,000






134 | P a g e

Table 24: Alternative 3 Infrastructure Costs


Bus Stops



14

11,000

154,000 Shelter/Canopy

Benches

Information Panel

Parking Lots* Grading 54,000 SF 40 (per SF) 2,160,000

Paving

Striping

Land Purchase -- 0.22 acres 27,778 (per acre) 6,111

Parking Lot and

Shuttle Signage

Parking 2

180

7,920 Yield 14

Crosswalk 14

Bus Stop 14

Parallel Bus Bays

Preliminary

Eng./Environmental

1 1,500 1,500

Construction Contract

(including contingency)

1 110,000 110,000


Emergency Call

Box


Radio

9 6,000 54,000

Light Poles

Pole

28

500

14,000 Light Bulb

Arm

Solar Panel


Restroom Waterless 1 -- --


Technologies

Propane Technology 1 37,000 - 175,000 varies


need.

37,000 - 175,000






135 | P a g e

Appendix D

Section D.1: Purchasing Option

Present Value Costs over a 12-year Span

First Year Initial Bus Costs

136 | P a g e

Annual Operating Costs

Annual Maintenance Costs

137 | P a g e

Infrastructure Costs

138 | P a g e

Section D.2: Leasing Option

(note: same annual operating costs, maintenance costs, and infrastructure costs as purchasing option)

Present Value Costs over a 12-year Span

Bus Down Payment

139 | P a g e

Annual Payment

Buyout Rate

Joshua Tree National Park Transit Feasibility Study

Documents

Transcript of Joshua Tree National Park Transit Feasibility Study